<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_17_1736242</id>
	<title>The Movie Studios' Big 3D Scam</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268848800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"There's a lot of things wrong with 3D movies. <em>Avatar's</em> 3D was well executed, but <em>Alice's</em> 3D was really bad, like all 2D-to-3D conversions. And yet, studios are reconverting 2D movies&mdash;including classics&mdash;into 3D to milk this fad. On top of that, the theaters are not prepared for 3D, with bad eyeglass optics and dark projections. In this article, a top CG supervisor in a prominent visual effects studio in Los Angeles calls it as it is: <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5493832/the-movie-studios-big-3d-scam">it's all a big scam by the movie studios</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " There 's a lot of things wrong with 3D movies .
Avatar 's 3D was well executed , but Alice 's 3D was really bad , like all 2D-to-3D conversions .
And yet , studios are reconverting 2D movies    including classics    into 3D to milk this fad .
On top of that , the theaters are not prepared for 3D , with bad eyeglass optics and dark projections .
In this article , a top CG supervisor in a prominent visual effects studio in Los Angeles calls it as it is : it 's all a big scam by the movie studios .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "There's a lot of things wrong with 3D movies.
Avatar's 3D was well executed, but Alice's 3D was really bad, like all 2D-to-3D conversions.
And yet, studios are reconverting 2D movies—including classics—into 3D to milk this fad.
On top of that, the theaters are not prepared for 3D, with bad eyeglass optics and dark projections.
In this article, a top CG supervisor in a prominent visual effects studio in Los Angeles calls it as it is: it's all a big scam by the movie studios.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518982</id>
	<title>Where are the real 3D films?</title>
	<author>Grumbleduke</author>
	<datestamp>1268845440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read this headline and assumed at first it was an article about the fact that the "3D" in cinemas isn't really 3D at all (assuming that D refers to a spatial dimension). I got really excited when I heard about TV companies making a big drive for "3D television" but then lost interest as soon as I saw glasses. All you are getting is 2 x 2D (which isn't 4D... more 2.5D). It is all just an illusion (OK, so that's pretty much all film is anyway, but you know what I mean). There is no movement; when something comes at you from the screen, you can't dodge. You can't look behind things, you can't change your view.</p><p>It is interesting because I remember "3D" films being around for over 10 years (usually at places like the various Disney sites) and they were just shiny, let's-all-have-some-fun gimmicks. I even remember getting red-blue glasses with cereal boxes some time ago. False-3D is old and boring, it's been around for ages and is extremely limited.</p><p>What I am waiting for is true 3D filming. This would probably only be possible with cartoons etc. for a while, but the idea of having a film that you can really walk around (or through) is quite appealing. Obviously the film-making process would become considerably more complicated (more like producing a computer game) and the hardware at the viewer end could be quite complicated.</p><p>Alternatively, one way of achieving some sort of 3D would be to capitalise on the increasing cross-over between televisions and computers; you could set up a film as some sort of 3D environment that the viewer could wander around as you would in an FPS (or something) and focus on whatever you were more interested in; obviously you could still just watch it all from the default PoV (and it might mess things up when watching with other people), but personally I think it could be an interesting idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read this headline and assumed at first it was an article about the fact that the " 3D " in cinemas is n't really 3D at all ( assuming that D refers to a spatial dimension ) .
I got really excited when I heard about TV companies making a big drive for " 3D television " but then lost interest as soon as I saw glasses .
All you are getting is 2 x 2D ( which is n't 4D... more 2.5D ) .
It is all just an illusion ( OK , so that 's pretty much all film is anyway , but you know what I mean ) .
There is no movement ; when something comes at you from the screen , you ca n't dodge .
You ca n't look behind things , you ca n't change your view.It is interesting because I remember " 3D " films being around for over 10 years ( usually at places like the various Disney sites ) and they were just shiny , let 's-all-have-some-fun gimmicks .
I even remember getting red-blue glasses with cereal boxes some time ago .
False-3D is old and boring , it 's been around for ages and is extremely limited.What I am waiting for is true 3D filming .
This would probably only be possible with cartoons etc .
for a while , but the idea of having a film that you can really walk around ( or through ) is quite appealing .
Obviously the film-making process would become considerably more complicated ( more like producing a computer game ) and the hardware at the viewer end could be quite complicated.Alternatively , one way of achieving some sort of 3D would be to capitalise on the increasing cross-over between televisions and computers ; you could set up a film as some sort of 3D environment that the viewer could wander around as you would in an FPS ( or something ) and focus on whatever you were more interested in ; obviously you could still just watch it all from the default PoV ( and it might mess things up when watching with other people ) , but personally I think it could be an interesting idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read this headline and assumed at first it was an article about the fact that the "3D" in cinemas isn't really 3D at all (assuming that D refers to a spatial dimension).
I got really excited when I heard about TV companies making a big drive for "3D television" but then lost interest as soon as I saw glasses.
All you are getting is 2 x 2D (which isn't 4D... more 2.5D).
It is all just an illusion (OK, so that's pretty much all film is anyway, but you know what I mean).
There is no movement; when something comes at you from the screen, you can't dodge.
You can't look behind things, you can't change your view.It is interesting because I remember "3D" films being around for over 10 years (usually at places like the various Disney sites) and they were just shiny, let's-all-have-some-fun gimmicks.
I even remember getting red-blue glasses with cereal boxes some time ago.
False-3D is old and boring, it's been around for ages and is extremely limited.What I am waiting for is true 3D filming.
This would probably only be possible with cartoons etc.
for a while, but the idea of having a film that you can really walk around (or through) is quite appealing.
Obviously the film-making process would become considerably more complicated (more like producing a computer game) and the hardware at the viewer end could be quite complicated.Alternatively, one way of achieving some sort of 3D would be to capitalise on the increasing cross-over between televisions and computers; you could set up a film as some sort of 3D environment that the viewer could wander around as you would in an FPS (or something) and focus on whatever you were more interested in; obviously you could still just watch it all from the default PoV (and it might mess things up when watching with other people), but personally I think it could be an interesting idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512968</id>
	<title>Of course it's all a bit scam...</title>
	<author>DigitalSorceress</author>
	<datestamp>1268855040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anti-Piracy types, the studios, and the cinema chains have got to be feeling a big crunch from the recession. Why on Earth would I pay $10+ for a movie ticket and another $10 for (about $1.00 worth cost-wise) soda and popcorn to be forced to sit in some seat with horrible legroom and the inevitable kid kicking the back of it and chatty neighbors when I could just wait a few months for it to come out on dvd so I can buy it and watch it at home on my 61" TV with whatever drinks and snacks I want. Or, I could probably wait a month and see it on some premium or on-demand service.</p><p>Oh, it's 3D? crap, I don't have that equipment at home, guess I have to go see it in the theater afterall.</p><p>FEH!</p><p>It doesn't surprise me at all that the industry is phoning in the 3D aspect... it's just a tool to get you to go see it at premium rates.</p><p>Besides, I wear prescription glasses and it makes those goggle things not set so well with me anyway.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/get off my lawn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anti-Piracy types , the studios , and the cinema chains have got to be feeling a big crunch from the recession .
Why on Earth would I pay $ 10 + for a movie ticket and another $ 10 for ( about $ 1.00 worth cost-wise ) soda and popcorn to be forced to sit in some seat with horrible legroom and the inevitable kid kicking the back of it and chatty neighbors when I could just wait a few months for it to come out on dvd so I can buy it and watch it at home on my 61 " TV with whatever drinks and snacks I want .
Or , I could probably wait a month and see it on some premium or on-demand service.Oh , it 's 3D ?
crap , I do n't have that equipment at home , guess I have to go see it in the theater afterall.FEH ! It does n't surprise me at all that the industry is phoning in the 3D aspect... it 's just a tool to get you to go see it at premium rates.Besides , I wear prescription glasses and it makes those goggle things not set so well with me anyway .
/get off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anti-Piracy types, the studios, and the cinema chains have got to be feeling a big crunch from the recession.
Why on Earth would I pay $10+ for a movie ticket and another $10 for (about $1.00 worth cost-wise) soda and popcorn to be forced to sit in some seat with horrible legroom and the inevitable kid kicking the back of it and chatty neighbors when I could just wait a few months for it to come out on dvd so I can buy it and watch it at home on my 61" TV with whatever drinks and snacks I want.
Or, I could probably wait a month and see it on some premium or on-demand service.Oh, it's 3D?
crap, I don't have that equipment at home, guess I have to go see it in the theater afterall.FEH!It doesn't surprise me at all that the industry is phoning in the 3D aspect... it's just a tool to get you to go see it at premium rates.Besides, I wear prescription glasses and it makes those goggle things not set so well with me anyway.
/get off my lawn!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513004</id>
	<title>Costs too much</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268855220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My gripe with the 3D movies is that they are just too darned expensive to attend for a family of four.  $54 to take my family to see Avatar, and that is before refreshments.  And I'm sure it is even more expensive in other parts of the country.  I can own two blu-ray movies for that.   And theaters claim that they are still losing money?  Maybe that is because people can't afford (or refuse) to spend good money on overproduced drivel.  I enjoyed Avatar, but most of today's movies are just not worth going to the theater if they are going to cost that much.  Yet another modern day business model is broken by its own greed.  Maybe if actors didn't command 20 million per film, and more time was spent of plot, and studio's didn't use accounting tricks to hide their profits and the MPAA wasn't just generally evil...but I digress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My gripe with the 3D movies is that they are just too darned expensive to attend for a family of four .
$ 54 to take my family to see Avatar , and that is before refreshments .
And I 'm sure it is even more expensive in other parts of the country .
I can own two blu-ray movies for that .
And theaters claim that they are still losing money ?
Maybe that is because people ca n't afford ( or refuse ) to spend good money on overproduced drivel .
I enjoyed Avatar , but most of today 's movies are just not worth going to the theater if they are going to cost that much .
Yet another modern day business model is broken by its own greed .
Maybe if actors did n't command 20 million per film , and more time was spent of plot , and studio 's did n't use accounting tricks to hide their profits and the MPAA was n't just generally evil...but I digress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My gripe with the 3D movies is that they are just too darned expensive to attend for a family of four.
$54 to take my family to see Avatar, and that is before refreshments.
And I'm sure it is even more expensive in other parts of the country.
I can own two blu-ray movies for that.
And theaters claim that they are still losing money?
Maybe that is because people can't afford (or refuse) to spend good money on overproduced drivel.
I enjoyed Avatar, but most of today's movies are just not worth going to the theater if they are going to cost that much.
Yet another modern day business model is broken by its own greed.
Maybe if actors didn't command 20 million per film, and more time was spent of plot, and studio's didn't use accounting tricks to hide their profits and the MPAA wasn't just generally evil...but I digress.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518240</id>
	<title>Re:Own them all!</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1268838780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's still not enough Blade Runner for me!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's still not enough Blade Runner for me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's still not enough Blade Runner for me!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513654</id>
	<title>Well obviously. Since it's no 3D at all!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268857380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It&rsquo;s stereo 2D. You can&rsquo;t rotate it (or walk around it) on 3 axes and you can&rsquo;t slice (= focus different parts) it on 3 axes.<br>Or, if you want, you can say that the whole movie is a tuple of 3D cube stills. But that would stop it from being a movie, and make it a picture<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>It&rsquo;s like drawing two vertical lines on the same place, and calling it a full (2D) picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s stereo 2D .
You can    t rotate it ( or walk around it ) on 3 axes and you can    t slice ( = focus different parts ) it on 3 axes.Or , if you want , you can say that the whole movie is a tuple of 3D cube stills .
But that would stop it from being a movie , and make it a picture ; ) It    s like drawing two vertical lines on the same place , and calling it a full ( 2D ) picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s stereo 2D.
You can’t rotate it (or walk around it) on 3 axes and you can’t slice (= focus different parts) it on 3 axes.Or, if you want, you can say that the whole movie is a tuple of 3D cube stills.
But that would stop it from being a movie, and make it a picture ;)It’s like drawing two vertical lines on the same place, and calling it a full (2D) picture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515878</id>
	<title>Re:It's early in the industry, consistency will co</title>
	<author>Kazoo the Clown</author>
	<datestamp>1268822820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I do agree that 2D -&gt; 3D conversions of older films are the equivalent of colorizing a black and white film ted turner style, it shouldn't be done out of respect for the original film.</i> </p><p>I'm somewhat, but not completely sympathetic with this viewpoint, especially with color which has the potential to mess up a print and could make it harder to find a non-colorized (non-messed-up) copy.   But with 3D, it generally won't completely replace a non-3D version-- in fact, I would think if it were to become prevalent (which I doubt), I would think a blu-ray edition would likely contain a non-3D playback mode as well.</p><p>The reason I hedge on not converting older films, is that I do think there could be some classics that might be worth checking out in a 3D conversion, such as the original "Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," and I'm sure a little thought could dredge up a few others.   In fact, possibly some really bad old movies might actually end up watchable in a 3D conversion...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do agree that 2D - &gt; 3D conversions of older films are the equivalent of colorizing a black and white film ted turner style , it should n't be done out of respect for the original film .
I 'm somewhat , but not completely sympathetic with this viewpoint , especially with color which has the potential to mess up a print and could make it harder to find a non-colorized ( non-messed-up ) copy .
But with 3D , it generally wo n't completely replace a non-3D version-- in fact , I would think if it were to become prevalent ( which I doubt ) , I would think a blu-ray edition would likely contain a non-3D playback mode as well.The reason I hedge on not converting older films , is that I do think there could be some classics that might be worth checking out in a 3D conversion , such as the original " Cabinet of Dr. Caligari , " and I 'm sure a little thought could dredge up a few others .
In fact , possibly some really bad old movies might actually end up watchable in a 3D conversion.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I do agree that 2D -&gt; 3D conversions of older films are the equivalent of colorizing a black and white film ted turner style, it shouldn't be done out of respect for the original film.
I'm somewhat, but not completely sympathetic with this viewpoint, especially with color which has the potential to mess up a print and could make it harder to find a non-colorized (non-messed-up) copy.
But with 3D, it generally won't completely replace a non-3D version-- in fact, I would think if it were to become prevalent (which I doubt), I would think a blu-ray edition would likely contain a non-3D playback mode as well.The reason I hedge on not converting older films, is that I do think there could be some classics that might be worth checking out in a 3D conversion, such as the original "Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," and I'm sure a little thought could dredge up a few others.
In fact, possibly some really bad old movies might actually end up watchable in a 3D conversion...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513678</id>
	<title>Re:Own them all!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268857500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes but did you buy any of them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but did you buy any of them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but did you buy any of them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516236</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268824320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, you missed everything else. The entire movie was in 3D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , you missed everything else .
The entire movie was in 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, you missed everything else.
The entire movie was in 3D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512668</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Yes</title>
	<author>Ozeroc</author>
	<datestamp>1268854080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And all the other obnoxious a-holes in the theatre...   I really hate going to the movies for just that reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And all the other obnoxious a-holes in the theatre... I really hate going to the movies for just that reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And all the other obnoxious a-holes in the theatre...   I really hate going to the movies for just that reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512564</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268853780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it might be related to the fact that your eyes are trying to focus on things that won't focus. I got a headache pretty fast when I noticed I was looking at lots of things that were blurry. Once I started trying to look directly at where the picture was focused and avoided things that were out of focus it got a little better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it might be related to the fact that your eyes are trying to focus on things that wo n't focus .
I got a headache pretty fast when I noticed I was looking at lots of things that were blurry .
Once I started trying to look directly at where the picture was focused and avoided things that were out of focus it got a little better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it might be related to the fact that your eyes are trying to focus on things that won't focus.
I got a headache pretty fast when I noticed I was looking at lots of things that were blurry.
Once I started trying to look directly at where the picture was focused and avoided things that were out of focus it got a little better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512442</id>
	<title>Re:Own them all!</title>
	<author>stefanlasiewski</author>
	<datestamp>1268853480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blade Runner: Re-imagined, by J. J. Abrams<br>Blade Runner 2: Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger<br>Blade Runner Prequel: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade\_Runner#Prequel" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade\_Runner#Prequel</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blade Runner : Re-imagined , by J. J. AbramsBlade Runner 2 : Starring Arnold SchwarzeneggerBlade Runner Prequel : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade \ _Runner # Prequel [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blade Runner: Re-imagined, by J. J. AbramsBlade Runner 2: Starring Arnold SchwarzeneggerBlade Runner Prequel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade\_Runner#Prequel [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31521790</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on Which 3D Tech...</title>
	<author>garyebickford</author>
	<datestamp>1268922240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think IMAX 3D is circular.  One of the posters higher up (<a href="http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1586250&amp;cid=31512644" title="slashdot.org"> sez so</a> [slashdot.org] and cites <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#IMAX\_3D" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org].  When I watched the movie I tested that (to determine which they were using) by tilting my head.  If polarization were linear the show would have darkened significantly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think IMAX 3D is circular .
One of the posters higher up ( sez so [ slashdot.org ] and cites Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] .
When I watched the movie I tested that ( to determine which they were using ) by tilting my head .
If polarization were linear the show would have darkened significantly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think IMAX 3D is circular.
One of the posters higher up ( sez so [slashdot.org] and cites Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
When I watched the movie I tested that (to determine which they were using) by tilting my head.
If polarization were linear the show would have darkened significantly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512550</id>
	<title>Where 3D works</title>
	<author>Bruce Perens</author>
	<datestamp>1268853720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D works for computer graphic animation, given twice the rendering capacity you would otherwise have. It's pretty simple to move the "camera" point and render again. There will be some tuning of textures, etc., to look right when viewed simultaneously from two camera points. So, given sufficient computer capacity you can get a 3D movie without significant additional labor, and it's the labor that is really expensive.</p><p>
3D works for new live action, given proper cinematography.
</p><p>Conversion of existing 2D film to 3D is garbage, and should rightly be called a scam. Remember colorization? It was mostly done because the tax write-offs on "new" film were more lucrative to the film company than on legacy film. It wasn't that the audience experience would be enhanced by fake color. When the tax law changed, colorization mostly went away.</p><p>
It's not an experience you can't have in your home. Samsung has a "3D ready" 55 inch TV on the market now, for $2300. The price will fall quickly enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D works for computer graphic animation , given twice the rendering capacity you would otherwise have .
It 's pretty simple to move the " camera " point and render again .
There will be some tuning of textures , etc. , to look right when viewed simultaneously from two camera points .
So , given sufficient computer capacity you can get a 3D movie without significant additional labor , and it 's the labor that is really expensive .
3D works for new live action , given proper cinematography .
Conversion of existing 2D film to 3D is garbage , and should rightly be called a scam .
Remember colorization ?
It was mostly done because the tax write-offs on " new " film were more lucrative to the film company than on legacy film .
It was n't that the audience experience would be enhanced by fake color .
When the tax law changed , colorization mostly went away .
It 's not an experience you ca n't have in your home .
Samsung has a " 3D ready " 55 inch TV on the market now , for $ 2300 .
The price will fall quickly enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D works for computer graphic animation, given twice the rendering capacity you would otherwise have.
It's pretty simple to move the "camera" point and render again.
There will be some tuning of textures, etc., to look right when viewed simultaneously from two camera points.
So, given sufficient computer capacity you can get a 3D movie without significant additional labor, and it's the labor that is really expensive.
3D works for new live action, given proper cinematography.
Conversion of existing 2D film to 3D is garbage, and should rightly be called a scam.
Remember colorization?
It was mostly done because the tax write-offs on "new" film were more lucrative to the film company than on legacy film.
It wasn't that the audience experience would be enhanced by fake color.
When the tax law changed, colorization mostly went away.
It's not an experience you can't have in your home.
Samsung has a "3D ready" 55 inch TV on the market now, for $2300.
The price will fall quickly enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513764</id>
	<title>Re:Alice</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268857800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I actually dislike this article, it's exactly what gives ammunition against the internet movement for changes to copyright <strong>|||</strong> because it feeds the idea that Hollywood can't win either way-</p></div><p>The part before the ||| does not match the part after it. They are not fitting.</p><p>Besides: It is a proven fact that Hollywood can&rsquo;t &ldquo;win&rdquo;. Also &ldquo;Hollywood&rdquo; means the greedy management/producer types. Not any artists. Those are raped by the management/producer types anyway. Not by us.</p><p>3D is a fad, that will be new only for a short time, and then be nothing special anymore. You can not base your business model on it. Let alone a delusional outdated one that borders on criminality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually dislike this article , it 's exactly what gives ammunition against the internet movement for changes to copyright | | | because it feeds the idea that Hollywood ca n't win either way-The part before the | | | does not match the part after it .
They are not fitting.Besides : It is a proven fact that Hollywood can    t    win    .
Also    Hollywood    means the greedy management/producer types .
Not any artists .
Those are raped by the management/producer types anyway .
Not by us.3D is a fad , that will be new only for a short time , and then be nothing special anymore .
You can not base your business model on it .
Let alone a delusional outdated one that borders on criminality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually dislike this article, it's exactly what gives ammunition against the internet movement for changes to copyright ||| because it feeds the idea that Hollywood can't win either way-The part before the ||| does not match the part after it.
They are not fitting.Besides: It is a proven fact that Hollywood can’t “win”.
Also “Hollywood” means the greedy management/producer types.
Not any artists.
Those are raped by the management/producer types anyway.
Not by us.3D is a fad, that will be new only for a short time, and then be nothing special anymore.
You can not base your business model on it.
Let alone a delusional outdated one that borders on criminality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31519598</id>
	<title>IMAX film</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1268854320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I saw Avatar on 3D IMAX using the older 70mm projector with the ultra-bright lamp; the picture was plenty bright enough.  Then, when I saw it in a multiplex IMAX with a digital projector and the picture was much darker.  So, IMO, 3D on a 70mm IMAX is really the best way to do it; until the digital projectors get better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I saw Avatar on 3D IMAX using the older 70mm projector with the ultra-bright lamp ; the picture was plenty bright enough .
Then , when I saw it in a multiplex IMAX with a digital projector and the picture was much darker .
So , IMO , 3D on a 70mm IMAX is really the best way to do it ; until the digital projectors get better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I saw Avatar on 3D IMAX using the older 70mm projector with the ultra-bright lamp; the picture was plenty bright enough.
Then, when I saw it in a multiplex IMAX with a digital projector and the picture was much darker.
So, IMO, 3D on a 70mm IMAX is really the best way to do it; until the digital projectors get better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512272</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268853060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article saved me from getting an Avatar headache and made the 3D experience more enjoyable:</p><p>http://www.shadowlocked.com/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=70:how-to-avoid-getting-a-3d-headache-while-watching-avatar&amp;catid=41:feature</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article saved me from getting an Avatar headache and made the 3D experience more enjoyable : http : //www.shadowlocked.com/index.php ? option = com \ _content&amp;view = article&amp;id = 70 : how-to-avoid-getting-a-3d-headache-while-watching-avatar&amp;catid = 41 : feature</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article saved me from getting an Avatar headache and made the 3D experience more enjoyable:http://www.shadowlocked.com/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=70:how-to-avoid-getting-a-3d-headache-while-watching-avatar&amp;catid=41:feature</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513308</id>
	<title>Do what I did for my daughter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268856300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should do what I did for my 3yo daughter. After the second 3D movie in which we received the cheap plastic one-size-fits-a-few glasses, we opted not to recycle them in the drop box. When we got home, I popped out the lenses of the 3D glasses and the lenses out of some old sunglasses my daughter didn't wear anymore. I trimmed up the polarized film using the lenses from the sunglasses as a mask. then popped the new polarized lenses into the old sunglasses.  Now, until she outgrows her old sunglasses, she has a custom pair of 3D glasses. compatible with all RealD-3D projectors.</p><p>I imagine you could do something similar, possibly even attaching the filters to your existing prescription glasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should do what I did for my 3yo daughter .
After the second 3D movie in which we received the cheap plastic one-size-fits-a-few glasses , we opted not to recycle them in the drop box .
When we got home , I popped out the lenses of the 3D glasses and the lenses out of some old sunglasses my daughter did n't wear anymore .
I trimmed up the polarized film using the lenses from the sunglasses as a mask .
then popped the new polarized lenses into the old sunglasses .
Now , until she outgrows her old sunglasses , she has a custom pair of 3D glasses .
compatible with all RealD-3D projectors.I imagine you could do something similar , possibly even attaching the filters to your existing prescription glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should do what I did for my 3yo daughter.
After the second 3D movie in which we received the cheap plastic one-size-fits-a-few glasses, we opted not to recycle them in the drop box.
When we got home, I popped out the lenses of the 3D glasses and the lenses out of some old sunglasses my daughter didn't wear anymore.
I trimmed up the polarized film using the lenses from the sunglasses as a mask.
then popped the new polarized lenses into the old sunglasses.
Now, until she outgrows her old sunglasses, she has a custom pair of 3D glasses.
compatible with all RealD-3D projectors.I imagine you could do something similar, possibly even attaching the filters to your existing prescription glasses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31522282</id>
	<title>Re:The hidden perk of 3D...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268924520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can you imagine watching Lord of The Rings about being able to turn your head to get an entirely new perspective of what is going on?</p></div><p>Ya, I sure can. It would look like dogshit, since Jackson used perspective to make the actors appear to be shorter/taller than they really are. It would cause all kinds of crazy perspecitive issues, such as seeing Frodo taller than Gandalf but when turning your head both of them stand taller than the ankle-high Black Riders.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine watching Lord of The Rings about being able to turn your head to get an entirely new perspective of what is going on ? Ya , I sure can .
It would look like dogshit , since Jackson used perspective to make the actors appear to be shorter/taller than they really are .
It would cause all kinds of crazy perspecitive issues , such as seeing Frodo taller than Gandalf but when turning your head both of them stand taller than the ankle-high Black Riders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine watching Lord of The Rings about being able to turn your head to get an entirely new perspective of what is going on?Ya, I sure can.
It would look like dogshit, since Jackson used perspective to make the actors appear to be shorter/taller than they really are.
It would cause all kinds of crazy perspecitive issues, such as seeing Frodo taller than Gandalf but when turning your head both of them stand taller than the ankle-high Black Riders.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515542</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268821260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw Avatar in 3D at a cinema that didn't use polarisation of light at all.[1]  I thought about it during the film, and came up with something similar to the real <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D\_Cinema#Interference\_filter\_technology" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">technique</a> [wikipedia.org] they used: you use very narrow-band red, green and blue colours, and use slightly offset bands for the two different images (left-eye and right-eye).  Then the glasses just need to have slightly different (but very specific) colour filters in each lens.</p><p>[1] You can check for this by using two sets of glasses, looking through (say) the left lens of one set and the right lens of the other.  For linear polarisation, the amount of light coming through will vary as you rotate one set compared to the other.  I haven't seen circular polarisation used before, but it should result in no effect if you use the same lens from each set, and complete blackness if you use different lenses from the two sets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw Avatar in 3D at a cinema that did n't use polarisation of light at all .
[ 1 ] I thought about it during the film , and came up with something similar to the real technique [ wikipedia.org ] they used : you use very narrow-band red , green and blue colours , and use slightly offset bands for the two different images ( left-eye and right-eye ) .
Then the glasses just need to have slightly different ( but very specific ) colour filters in each lens .
[ 1 ] You can check for this by using two sets of glasses , looking through ( say ) the left lens of one set and the right lens of the other .
For linear polarisation , the amount of light coming through will vary as you rotate one set compared to the other .
I have n't seen circular polarisation used before , but it should result in no effect if you use the same lens from each set , and complete blackness if you use different lenses from the two sets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw Avatar in 3D at a cinema that didn't use polarisation of light at all.
[1]  I thought about it during the film, and came up with something similar to the real technique [wikipedia.org] they used: you use very narrow-band red, green and blue colours, and use slightly offset bands for the two different images (left-eye and right-eye).
Then the glasses just need to have slightly different (but very specific) colour filters in each lens.
[1] You can check for this by using two sets of glasses, looking through (say) the left lens of one set and the right lens of the other.
For linear polarisation, the amount of light coming through will vary as you rotate one set compared to the other.
I haven't seen circular polarisation used before, but it should result in no effect if you use the same lens from each set, and complete blackness if you use different lenses from the two sets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515406</id>
	<title>The letdown of Avatar</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1268820660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>was the low frame rate.  The 3D was beautiful, but camera movements were still restricted by either moving very slowly or introducing jarring strobing artifacts.  That part hasn't changed since 24 fps was introduced 4096 years ago or whenever it was.  And James Cameron knows it - he was shot down for trying to film Avatar at 48fps.</p><p>While cinemas are busy upgrading to digital this and 3D that, it would seem a perfect time to apply a small firmware upgrade to digital projectors and begin moving on from the horrible 24fps cinema format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>was the low frame rate .
The 3D was beautiful , but camera movements were still restricted by either moving very slowly or introducing jarring strobing artifacts .
That part has n't changed since 24 fps was introduced 4096 years ago or whenever it was .
And James Cameron knows it - he was shot down for trying to film Avatar at 48fps.While cinemas are busy upgrading to digital this and 3D that , it would seem a perfect time to apply a small firmware upgrade to digital projectors and begin moving on from the horrible 24fps cinema format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was the low frame rate.
The 3D was beautiful, but camera movements were still restricted by either moving very slowly or introducing jarring strobing artifacts.
That part hasn't changed since 24 fps was introduced 4096 years ago or whenever it was.
And James Cameron knows it - he was shot down for trying to film Avatar at 48fps.While cinemas are busy upgrading to digital this and 3D that, it would seem a perfect time to apply a small firmware upgrade to digital projectors and begin moving on from the horrible 24fps cinema format.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515642</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Yes</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1268821740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I paid $12.50 for Avatar at Imax. I'd rather pay $12.50 for District 9 at the Draft House Cinema, because the movie was better AND I can drink beer. I felt ripped off with Avatar because I paid extra for effects, and paid way too much for a Dances with Wolves/Pocahontis remake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I paid $ 12.50 for Avatar at Imax .
I 'd rather pay $ 12.50 for District 9 at the Draft House Cinema , because the movie was better AND I can drink beer .
I felt ripped off with Avatar because I paid extra for effects , and paid way too much for a Dances with Wolves/Pocahontis remake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I paid $12.50 for Avatar at Imax.
I'd rather pay $12.50 for District 9 at the Draft House Cinema, because the movie was better AND I can drink beer.
I felt ripped off with Avatar because I paid extra for effects, and paid way too much for a Dances with Wolves/Pocahontis remake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224</id>
	<title>Own them all!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268852940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blade Runner U.S. theatrical version<br>Blade Runner Criterion Edition<br>Blade Runner U.S. broadcast version<br>Blade Runner Director's Cut<br>Blade Runner 25th Anniversary Edition<br>Blade Runner Ultimate Collector's Edition<br>Blade Runner 3D<br>Blade Runner 3D BluRay<br>Blade Runner 3D Enhanced Sensory Edition<br>Blade Runner 3D Olifactory Special Release<br>Blade Runner Ridley Scott Memorial Edition</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blade Runner U.S. theatrical versionBlade Runner Criterion EditionBlade Runner U.S. broadcast versionBlade Runner Director 's CutBlade Runner 25th Anniversary EditionBlade Runner Ultimate Collector 's EditionBlade Runner 3DBlade Runner 3D BluRayBlade Runner 3D Enhanced Sensory EditionBlade Runner 3D Olifactory Special ReleaseBlade Runner Ridley Scott Memorial Edition</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blade Runner U.S. theatrical versionBlade Runner Criterion EditionBlade Runner U.S. broadcast versionBlade Runner Director's CutBlade Runner 25th Anniversary EditionBlade Runner Ultimate Collector's EditionBlade Runner 3DBlade Runner 3D BluRayBlade Runner 3D Enhanced Sensory EditionBlade Runner 3D Olifactory Special ReleaseBlade Runner Ridley Scott Memorial Edition</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514522</id>
	<title>Re:The hidden perk of 3D...</title>
	<author>Solandri</author>
	<datestamp>1268817600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Plus we might get digital media that allows us to "look around" during a live movie. Can you imagine watching Lord of The Rings about being able to turn your head to get an entirely new perspective of what is going on?</p></div></blockquote><p>
As an amateur photographer, generating a breathtaking visual is not as simple as pointing the camera and recording the scene.  How you frame it, camera angles, lighting, etc. all play a huge role.  I don't think the holographic immersion you describe will work for static storytelling like movies.  It will work for news broadcasts, and for interactive entertainment like games (where you can control the camera's movement within the environment).  But for movie-like static stories where aesthetically pleasing visuals are a large part of the experience, the perspective will have to remain fixed, pre-selected by a talented director, cinematographer, and editor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus we might get digital media that allows us to " look around " during a live movie .
Can you imagine watching Lord of The Rings about being able to turn your head to get an entirely new perspective of what is going on ?
As an amateur photographer , generating a breathtaking visual is not as simple as pointing the camera and recording the scene .
How you frame it , camera angles , lighting , etc .
all play a huge role .
I do n't think the holographic immersion you describe will work for static storytelling like movies .
It will work for news broadcasts , and for interactive entertainment like games ( where you can control the camera 's movement within the environment ) .
But for movie-like static stories where aesthetically pleasing visuals are a large part of the experience , the perspective will have to remain fixed , pre-selected by a talented director , cinematographer , and editor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus we might get digital media that allows us to "look around" during a live movie.
Can you imagine watching Lord of The Rings about being able to turn your head to get an entirely new perspective of what is going on?
As an amateur photographer, generating a breathtaking visual is not as simple as pointing the camera and recording the scene.
How you frame it, camera angles, lighting, etc.
all play a huge role.
I don't think the holographic immersion you describe will work for static storytelling like movies.
It will work for news broadcasts, and for interactive entertainment like games (where you can control the camera's movement within the environment).
But for movie-like static stories where aesthetically pleasing visuals are a large part of the experience, the perspective will have to remain fixed, pre-selected by a talented director, cinematographer, and editor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512868</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>GayBliss</author>
	<datestamp>1268854680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side, there would be ghosting.</p></div><p>It's meant to keep you awake during boring movies by keeping your head up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side , there would be ghosting.It 's meant to keep you awake during boring movies by keeping your head up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side, there would be ghosting.It's meant to keep you awake during boring movies by keeping your head up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516976</id>
	<title>Re:Mostly hype, but can be done effectively</title>
	<author>Mista2</author>
	<datestamp>1268828880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, yeah, bring on the HD 3D porn! - oh wait, I have to go to see it in a cinema - &amp;*^*&amp; off then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , yeah , bring on the HD 3D porn !
- oh wait , I have to go to see it in a cinema - &amp; * ^ * &amp; off then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, yeah, bring on the HD 3D porn!
- oh wait, I have to go to see it in a cinema - &amp;*^*&amp; off then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514250</id>
	<title>OMG they did not mention...</title>
	<author>alien9</author>
	<datestamp>1268816580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the free conjunctivitis included from that nasty greasy dirty glasses!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>the free conjunctivitis included from that nasty greasy dirty glasses ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the free conjunctivitis included from that nasty greasy dirty glasses!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514466</id>
	<title>Re:The hidden perk of 3D...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1268817360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Can you imagine watching Lord of The Rings about being able to turn your head to get an entirely new perspective of what is going on?</i></p><p>Honestly, I cannot. Movies pretty much exist on the fact that they give you a "viewport" for a scene, and everything around it being off scene and not visible. The movie shows you a viewport of about 60 to 120 degrees (depending on a few factors), now imagine you'd have to do a 360 degree version. The cost alone makes your head spin even if you didn't care what's going on behind your back.</p><p>Not to mention that in most scenes, you don't really care about the other 3/4ths of the area "around" you, since the camera is of course pointed at the corner of the world where "it" is happening, no matter whether "it" being two characters talking or a car exploding.</p><p>I'd guess it would drive costs through the roof and producers nuts, but not sales up. It would be a fad like what a local pay-tv station tried to sell, they went to the race track with a few dozen cameras and had YOU choose what part of the race you wanted to see. It was quickly canceled, people found out that it's not really interesting to watch the pits unless someone interesting is in there getting their tires changed. And then the networks usually chose the pits cam anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine watching Lord of The Rings about being able to turn your head to get an entirely new perspective of what is going on ? Honestly , I can not .
Movies pretty much exist on the fact that they give you a " viewport " for a scene , and everything around it being off scene and not visible .
The movie shows you a viewport of about 60 to 120 degrees ( depending on a few factors ) , now imagine you 'd have to do a 360 degree version .
The cost alone makes your head spin even if you did n't care what 's going on behind your back.Not to mention that in most scenes , you do n't really care about the other 3/4ths of the area " around " you , since the camera is of course pointed at the corner of the world where " it " is happening , no matter whether " it " being two characters talking or a car exploding.I 'd guess it would drive costs through the roof and producers nuts , but not sales up .
It would be a fad like what a local pay-tv station tried to sell , they went to the race track with a few dozen cameras and had YOU choose what part of the race you wanted to see .
It was quickly canceled , people found out that it 's not really interesting to watch the pits unless someone interesting is in there getting their tires changed .
And then the networks usually chose the pits cam anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine watching Lord of The Rings about being able to turn your head to get an entirely new perspective of what is going on?Honestly, I cannot.
Movies pretty much exist on the fact that they give you a "viewport" for a scene, and everything around it being off scene and not visible.
The movie shows you a viewport of about 60 to 120 degrees (depending on a few factors), now imagine you'd have to do a 360 degree version.
The cost alone makes your head spin even if you didn't care what's going on behind your back.Not to mention that in most scenes, you don't really care about the other 3/4ths of the area "around" you, since the camera is of course pointed at the corner of the world where "it" is happening, no matter whether "it" being two characters talking or a car exploding.I'd guess it would drive costs through the roof and producers nuts, but not sales up.
It would be a fad like what a local pay-tv station tried to sell, they went to the race track with a few dozen cameras and had YOU choose what part of the race you wanted to see.
It was quickly canceled, people found out that it's not really interesting to watch the pits unless someone interesting is in there getting their tires changed.
And then the networks usually chose the pits cam anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512808</id>
	<title>Re:Perish the thought?</title>
	<author>Mindcontrolled</author>
	<datestamp>1268854440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found the way Cameron used 3D quite well executed, actually. Not many "jump you in the face" effects, rather giving it a slight bit of depth all the time. There were some conflicts with the 3D effect and depth perception for me, though - objects in a deeper 3D layer that were filmed slightly out of focus, while my eyes tried in vain to focus on them. I think directors really have some learning to do regarding how to work with the effect. It is a useful effect that can be used to enhance movies. For now, some producers will probably try to milk it and make 3D films for the sake of it. Once that wears off, it will be integrated in the cinematic toolkit like everything else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found the way Cameron used 3D quite well executed , actually .
Not many " jump you in the face " effects , rather giving it a slight bit of depth all the time .
There were some conflicts with the 3D effect and depth perception for me , though - objects in a deeper 3D layer that were filmed slightly out of focus , while my eyes tried in vain to focus on them .
I think directors really have some learning to do regarding how to work with the effect .
It is a useful effect that can be used to enhance movies .
For now , some producers will probably try to milk it and make 3D films for the sake of it .
Once that wears off , it will be integrated in the cinematic toolkit like everything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found the way Cameron used 3D quite well executed, actually.
Not many "jump you in the face" effects, rather giving it a slight bit of depth all the time.
There were some conflicts with the 3D effect and depth perception for me, though - objects in a deeper 3D layer that were filmed slightly out of focus, while my eyes tried in vain to focus on them.
I think directors really have some learning to do regarding how to work with the effect.
It is a useful effect that can be used to enhance movies.
For now, some producers will probably try to milk it and make 3D films for the sake of it.
Once that wears off, it will be integrated in the cinematic toolkit like everything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31521946</id>
	<title>Re:Perish the thought?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1268923080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's odd, but IMHO the best 3D scenes in Avatar were the simplest ones. All the action scenes and fight scenes looked bad to me (as I said, like flat 2D layers on top of each other). But little scenes like the guy sitting with a bunch of other soldiers in the transport, the scene in the field with the dandelion-like things floating around--simple scenes like that looked really good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's odd , but IMHO the best 3D scenes in Avatar were the simplest ones .
All the action scenes and fight scenes looked bad to me ( as I said , like flat 2D layers on top of each other ) .
But little scenes like the guy sitting with a bunch of other soldiers in the transport , the scene in the field with the dandelion-like things floating around--simple scenes like that looked really good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's odd, but IMHO the best 3D scenes in Avatar were the simplest ones.
All the action scenes and fight scenes looked bad to me (as I said, like flat 2D layers on top of each other).
But little scenes like the guy sitting with a bunch of other soldiers in the transport, the scene in the field with the dandelion-like things floating around--simple scenes like that looked really good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512230</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268852940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had to take my glasses off during it because I was getting a headache too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had to take my glasses off during it because I was getting a headache too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had to take my glasses off during it because I was getting a headache too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513428</id>
	<title>Re:Own them all!</title>
	<author>Paracelcus</author>
	<datestamp>1268856660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm waiting for "Blade Runner 3D virtual reality sex with Pris version".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting for " Blade Runner 3D virtual reality sex with Pris version " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting for "Blade Runner 3D virtual reality sex with Pris version".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512254</id>
	<title>More headaches?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268853000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My wife and friends got terrible headaches/motion sickness in Avatar. If this is supposed to make marginal movies more watchable, count many people out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife and friends got terrible headaches/motion sickness in Avatar .
If this is supposed to make marginal movies more watchable , count many people out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife and friends got terrible headaches/motion sickness in Avatar.
If this is supposed to make marginal movies more watchable, count many people out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515446</id>
	<title>Re:Alice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268820840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, people want entertainment, no matter where it comes from, right now it's easier to download a copy of the internet instead of buying one. If that industry can be so easily bypassed then it's not meant to exist, even with the 3D thing it won't be long until you'll have one in every home, and then that industry will really die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , people want entertainment , no matter where it comes from , right now it 's easier to download a copy of the internet instead of buying one .
If that industry can be so easily bypassed then it 's not meant to exist , even with the 3D thing it wo n't be long until you 'll have one in every home , and then that industry will really die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, people want entertainment, no matter where it comes from, right now it's easier to download a copy of the internet instead of buying one.
If that industry can be so easily bypassed then it's not meant to exist, even with the 3D thing it won't be long until you'll have one in every home, and then that industry will really die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512870</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268854740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Avatar's 3D was a stupid gimmick.  The parts I remember being in 3D were the ashes and the credits.  Did I miss something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Avatar 's 3D was a stupid gimmick .
The parts I remember being in 3D were the ashes and the credits .
Did I miss something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Avatar's 3D was a stupid gimmick.
The parts I remember being in 3D were the ashes and the credits.
Did I miss something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104</id>
	<title>Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268852580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine how I feel about all that hype with only one eye...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine how I feel about all that hype with only one eye.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine how I feel about all that hype with only one eye...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513254</id>
	<title>Re:but 3D home theater is next.</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1268856060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think a 50ft screen, or 12000W sounds system is going to make it home any time soon.  I have a real IMAX theater, with very good 3d technology 10 minutes from my home.  There might, if you're really generous, be 12 movies worth seeing in a year.  Maybe half of them would be amenable to being made in 3d.  If it costs $15 per showing, for two people that's $180 in a year.  I could go to the theater for 10 years and still spend less than having a giant projector and kilowatt surround sound system in my home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think a 50ft screen , or 12000W sounds system is going to make it home any time soon .
I have a real IMAX theater , with very good 3d technology 10 minutes from my home .
There might , if you 're really generous , be 12 movies worth seeing in a year .
Maybe half of them would be amenable to being made in 3d .
If it costs $ 15 per showing , for two people that 's $ 180 in a year .
I could go to the theater for 10 years and still spend less than having a giant projector and kilowatt surround sound system in my home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think a 50ft screen, or 12000W sounds system is going to make it home any time soon.
I have a real IMAX theater, with very good 3d technology 10 minutes from my home.
There might, if you're really generous, be 12 movies worth seeing in a year.
Maybe half of them would be amenable to being made in 3d.
If it costs $15 per showing, for two people that's $180 in a year.
I could go to the theater for 10 years and still spend less than having a giant projector and kilowatt surround sound system in my home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512264</id>
	<title>Perish the thought?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1268853060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hollywood pursing a fad for money?!?!?</p><p>But seriously, Avatar is the only movie I've seen in modern 3D. It added slightly to the movie. A few scenes stood out for some pretty cool 3D effects, but most of the time I was thinking "This just looks like flat 2D layers set slightly above one another." But I don't see it as anything more than a novelty. Hollywood is jumping on it because it's a way to get away with charging $15 for a ticket instead of the usual $9. But it won't make a bad script better. It won't make a bad actor deliver a better performance. It won't make Michael Bay any less an annoying hack. And it won't get me into the theater to see a movie that I normally wouldn't have wanted to see in regular 2D.</p><p>Cool shades, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hollywood pursing a fad for money ? ! ? !
? But seriously , Avatar is the only movie I 've seen in modern 3D .
It added slightly to the movie .
A few scenes stood out for some pretty cool 3D effects , but most of the time I was thinking " This just looks like flat 2D layers set slightly above one another .
" But I do n't see it as anything more than a novelty .
Hollywood is jumping on it because it 's a way to get away with charging $ 15 for a ticket instead of the usual $ 9 .
But it wo n't make a bad script better .
It wo n't make a bad actor deliver a better performance .
It wo n't make Michael Bay any less an annoying hack .
And it wo n't get me into the theater to see a movie that I normally would n't have wanted to see in regular 2D.Cool shades , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hollywood pursing a fad for money?!?!
?But seriously, Avatar is the only movie I've seen in modern 3D.
It added slightly to the movie.
A few scenes stood out for some pretty cool 3D effects, but most of the time I was thinking "This just looks like flat 2D layers set slightly above one another.
" But I don't see it as anything more than a novelty.
Hollywood is jumping on it because it's a way to get away with charging $15 for a ticket instead of the usual $9.
But it won't make a bad script better.
It won't make a bad actor deliver a better performance.
It won't make Michael Bay any less an annoying hack.
And it won't get me into the theater to see a movie that I normally wouldn't have wanted to see in regular 2D.Cool shades, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>nmb3000</author>
	<datestamp>1268854020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side, there would be ghosting.</i></p><p>Actually, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#IMAX\_3D" title="wikipedia.org">IMAX 3D uses circular polarization</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>I saw the film both at a normal theater (polarized) and IMAX 3D and found the IMAX version to be much more enjoyable.  The bigger screen made the entire think much more enveloping: It was more like being in the middle of the action instead of looking through a window into the 3D world.</p><p>That's my biggest beef with 3D, actually.  Many theaters just aren't built with it in mind.  If there is anything in your field of vision that is either illuminated or obstructing the screen, it will completely destroy the illusion of depth and drive your eyes and mind nuts.  Even just the black border of the theater wall against the screen was enough to distract at times (as I said above, the "through a window" effect).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side , there would be ghosting.Actually , IMAX 3D uses circular polarization [ wikipedia.org ] .I saw the film both at a normal theater ( polarized ) and IMAX 3D and found the IMAX version to be much more enjoyable .
The bigger screen made the entire think much more enveloping : It was more like being in the middle of the action instead of looking through a window into the 3D world.That 's my biggest beef with 3D , actually .
Many theaters just are n't built with it in mind .
If there is anything in your field of vision that is either illuminated or obstructing the screen , it will completely destroy the illusion of depth and drive your eyes and mind nuts .
Even just the black border of the theater wall against the screen was enough to distract at times ( as I said above , the " through a window " effect ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side, there would be ghosting.Actually, IMAX 3D uses circular polarization [wikipedia.org].I saw the film both at a normal theater (polarized) and IMAX 3D and found the IMAX version to be much more enjoyable.
The bigger screen made the entire think much more enveloping: It was more like being in the middle of the action instead of looking through a window into the 3D world.That's my biggest beef with 3D, actually.
Many theaters just aren't built with it in mind.
If there is anything in your field of vision that is either illuminated or obstructing the screen, it will completely destroy the illusion of depth and drive your eyes and mind nuts.
Even just the black border of the theater wall against the screen was enough to distract at times (as I said above, the "through a window" effect).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518346</id>
	<title>3-D... Pshaw!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268839860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm holding out for Smell-O-Vision (the real deal, not a John Waters film with scratch-n-sniff cards).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm holding out for Smell-O-Vision ( the real deal , not a John Waters film with scratch-n-sniff cards ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm holding out for Smell-O-Vision (the real deal, not a John Waters film with scratch-n-sniff cards).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512964</id>
	<title>Re:Where 3D works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268855040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theres a trick you don't need 2 times the computation capacity for the 3D parallax, you can get by by using the same shading across 80\% of the screen. So its more like 1.2 times the capacity, and 1.8 times the storage overhead.</p><p>So the hider and heavy calculation can be reused across the 2 images.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theres a trick you do n't need 2 times the computation capacity for the 3D parallax , you can get by by using the same shading across 80 \ % of the screen .
So its more like 1.2 times the capacity , and 1.8 times the storage overhead.So the hider and heavy calculation can be reused across the 2 images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theres a trick you don't need 2 times the computation capacity for the 3D parallax, you can get by by using the same shading across 80\% of the screen.
So its more like 1.2 times the capacity, and 1.8 times the storage overhead.So the hider and heavy calculation can be reused across the 2 images.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514960</id>
	<title>Re:but 3D home theater is next.</title>
	<author>ross.w</author>
	<datestamp>1268819220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how the glasses needed in the cinema work well with Polarised lenses and cost about $10 each, where the ones you  need for your home TV are special proprietary ones costing $200 each.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how the glasses needed in the cinema work well with Polarised lenses and cost about $ 10 each , where the ones you need for your home TV are special proprietary ones costing $ 200 each .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how the glasses needed in the cinema work well with Polarised lenses and cost about $10 each, where the ones you  need for your home TV are special proprietary ones costing $200 each.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512288</id>
	<title>The glasses suck terribly</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1268853120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have yet to go to a 3D movie where I didn't leave with a headache from the glasses themselves.  I wear prescription eyeglasses, and without fail before the movie is over I am sore from the poor fit of the 3D glasses.  Some of them fit so poorly that they end up putting all their weight on the end of my nose to make life even more interesting.<br> <br>
I think next time I'll save the $3 and see the movies in 2D instead.  The theaters should be able to provide us with more comfortable glasses by now...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to go to a 3D movie where I did n't leave with a headache from the glasses themselves .
I wear prescription eyeglasses , and without fail before the movie is over I am sore from the poor fit of the 3D glasses .
Some of them fit so poorly that they end up putting all their weight on the end of my nose to make life even more interesting .
I think next time I 'll save the $ 3 and see the movies in 2D instead .
The theaters should be able to provide us with more comfortable glasses by now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to go to a 3D movie where I didn't leave with a headache from the glasses themselves.
I wear prescription eyeglasses, and without fail before the movie is over I am sore from the poor fit of the 3D glasses.
Some of them fit so poorly that they end up putting all their weight on the end of my nose to make life even more interesting.
I think next time I'll save the $3 and see the movies in 2D instead.
The theaters should be able to provide us with more comfortable glasses by now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515042</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1268819520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then good, the 3D was well done and passively creates a more immersive experience. It's a lot better than cartoons that use 3D mainly to poke sticks at your eyes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then good , the 3D was well done and passively creates a more immersive experience .
It 's a lot better than cartoons that use 3D mainly to poke sticks at your eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then good, the 3D was well done and passively creates a more immersive experience.
It's a lot better than cartoons that use 3D mainly to poke sticks at your eyes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512974</id>
	<title>John Carter of Mars</title>
	<author>Terminus32</author>
	<datestamp>1268855100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently Disney/Pixar are shooting this in 3D...who knows??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently Disney/Pixar are shooting this in 3D...who knows ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently Disney/Pixar are shooting this in 3D...who knows?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513904</id>
	<title>Re:The hidden perk of 3D...</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1268858460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DVD was SUPPOSED to get studios to shoot with multiple cameras so you can change camera angles.</p><p>Problem is only the porn industry used it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DVD was SUPPOSED to get studios to shoot with multiple cameras so you can change camera angles.Problem is only the porn industry used it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DVD was SUPPOSED to get studios to shoot with multiple cameras so you can change camera angles.Problem is only the porn industry used it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514310</id>
	<title>Re:Mostly hype, but can be done effectively</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1268816880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that's gonna do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what wonders for sports?</p><p>The human eyes are able to create a 3D image for a distance of about 30-50 feet. Tops. For everything beyond we do not really have any measurable "depth perception". Now, how many sport events do you know where the camera is closer than that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's gon na do ... what wonders for sports ? The human eyes are able to create a 3D image for a distance of about 30-50 feet .
Tops. For everything beyond we do not really have any measurable " depth perception " .
Now , how many sport events do you know where the camera is closer than that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's gonna do ... what wonders for sports?The human eyes are able to create a 3D image for a distance of about 30-50 feet.
Tops. For everything beyond we do not really have any measurable "depth perception".
Now, how many sport events do you know where the camera is closer than that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516840</id>
	<title>Re:Own them all!</title>
	<author>Degro</author>
	<datestamp>1268827860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, if there was one movie worth owning multiple versions Blade Runner is it.  I still wouldn't though, but I'm cheap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if there was one movie worth owning multiple versions Blade Runner is it .
I still would n't though , but I 'm cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if there was one movie worth owning multiple versions Blade Runner is it.
I still wouldn't though, but I'm cheap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512664</id>
	<title>Alice</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1268854080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone tell me what was wrong with Alice's 3D exactly? I saw both versions and the 3D one was far, far better. I'm intrigued to know what the issues with it were.</p><p>I don't like the fact they encourage you to leave the glasses in a recycling bin then try and charge you for a new pair each time now. I also don't like how much more 3D films cost, but personally, 3D is about the only thing I applaud Hollywood for- all 3D films I've seen so far have been stunning, and finally, they're actually doing something to give me a reason to go to the cinema again, rather than just trying to sue pirates into giving them money without actually innovating, or trying to sell me HD copies that don't look that much better than the upscaled DVD copies of films I have already, only for twice the price.</p><p>I actually dislike this article, it's exactly what gives ammunition against the internet movement for changes to copyright because it feeds the idea that Hollywood can't win either way- they get told off for trying to protect a dated business model in the harshest way possible, and now it seems if they do something fresh to earn their money like so many people, they get slagged of for it too.</p><p>I feel dirty defending Hollywood, but is it so bad that they've decided to offer a new way of viewing movies, that for many people, like me, does in fact make the films that much more fun and enjoyable to watch, without getting rid of the classic 2D versions for those who prefer to keep watching it in 2D?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone tell me what was wrong with Alice 's 3D exactly ?
I saw both versions and the 3D one was far , far better .
I 'm intrigued to know what the issues with it were.I do n't like the fact they encourage you to leave the glasses in a recycling bin then try and charge you for a new pair each time now .
I also do n't like how much more 3D films cost , but personally , 3D is about the only thing I applaud Hollywood for- all 3D films I 've seen so far have been stunning , and finally , they 're actually doing something to give me a reason to go to the cinema again , rather than just trying to sue pirates into giving them money without actually innovating , or trying to sell me HD copies that do n't look that much better than the upscaled DVD copies of films I have already , only for twice the price.I actually dislike this article , it 's exactly what gives ammunition against the internet movement for changes to copyright because it feeds the idea that Hollywood ca n't win either way- they get told off for trying to protect a dated business model in the harshest way possible , and now it seems if they do something fresh to earn their money like so many people , they get slagged of for it too.I feel dirty defending Hollywood , but is it so bad that they 've decided to offer a new way of viewing movies , that for many people , like me , does in fact make the films that much more fun and enjoyable to watch , without getting rid of the classic 2D versions for those who prefer to keep watching it in 2D ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone tell me what was wrong with Alice's 3D exactly?
I saw both versions and the 3D one was far, far better.
I'm intrigued to know what the issues with it were.I don't like the fact they encourage you to leave the glasses in a recycling bin then try and charge you for a new pair each time now.
I also don't like how much more 3D films cost, but personally, 3D is about the only thing I applaud Hollywood for- all 3D films I've seen so far have been stunning, and finally, they're actually doing something to give me a reason to go to the cinema again, rather than just trying to sue pirates into giving them money without actually innovating, or trying to sell me HD copies that don't look that much better than the upscaled DVD copies of films I have already, only for twice the price.I actually dislike this article, it's exactly what gives ammunition against the internet movement for changes to copyright because it feeds the idea that Hollywood can't win either way- they get told off for trying to protect a dated business model in the harshest way possible, and now it seems if they do something fresh to earn their money like so many people, they get slagged of for it too.I feel dirty defending Hollywood, but is it so bad that they've decided to offer a new way of viewing movies, that for many people, like me, does in fact make the films that much more fun and enjoyable to watch, without getting rid of the classic 2D versions for those who prefer to keep watching it in 2D?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513684</id>
	<title>Casablanca</title>
	<author>earlymon</author>
	<datestamp>1268857500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wake me when 3D improves on movies like Casablanca or Seven Samurai.</p><p>A lot's being said about the studios and the movie experience - face it, as already pointed out in at least one other comment, this is also hitting the home theater market as hard as possible this year (with active glasses - whoopie).  And that whole trend is driven by more Blu-ray sales.</p><p>The profit motive for 3D is huge - it's out and it's not going away, any more than next year's Britney Spears will.</p><p>Maybe - maybe - I'll change my mind when someone figures out to incorporate Johnny Lee's head tracking system for *all* viewers in the room.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>I'm not reactionary to 3D because it's new - I'm reactionary to it because it's yet one more thing that doesn't hold the studios feet to the fire to give us better movies and better distribution models (read: no DRM), but it sure is lining their coffers like crazy.  The more of this that gets consumed, the more they're validated in their practices - simple.</p><p>And I note a distinct lack of BD DRM complaints when people discuss Avatar - no, that's all about how it looked in the theater and gee, can't wait for 3D at home.</p><p>My favorite quote on that movie came from my local indie newspaper: there's no question that Avatar is a great movie, but only time will prove if it's a good movie.</p><p>For me, this phrase has never been truer: nothing to see here, move along.</p><p>I'll see you in the balcony - tonight, they're showing Ghost Dog, and I highly recommend it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wake me when 3D improves on movies like Casablanca or Seven Samurai.A lot 's being said about the studios and the movie experience - face it , as already pointed out in at least one other comment , this is also hitting the home theater market as hard as possible this year ( with active glasses - whoopie ) .
And that whole trend is driven by more Blu-ray sales.The profit motive for 3D is huge - it 's out and it 's not going away , any more than next year 's Britney Spears will.Maybe - maybe - I 'll change my mind when someone figures out to incorporate Johnny Lee 's head tracking system for * all * viewers in the room.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Jd3-eiid-Uw [ youtube.com ] I 'm not reactionary to 3D because it 's new - I 'm reactionary to it because it 's yet one more thing that does n't hold the studios feet to the fire to give us better movies and better distribution models ( read : no DRM ) , but it sure is lining their coffers like crazy .
The more of this that gets consumed , the more they 're validated in their practices - simple.And I note a distinct lack of BD DRM complaints when people discuss Avatar - no , that 's all about how it looked in the theater and gee , ca n't wait for 3D at home.My favorite quote on that movie came from my local indie newspaper : there 's no question that Avatar is a great movie , but only time will prove if it 's a good movie.For me , this phrase has never been truer : nothing to see here , move along.I 'll see you in the balcony - tonight , they 're showing Ghost Dog , and I highly recommend it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wake me when 3D improves on movies like Casablanca or Seven Samurai.A lot's being said about the studios and the movie experience - face it, as already pointed out in at least one other comment, this is also hitting the home theater market as hard as possible this year (with active glasses - whoopie).
And that whole trend is driven by more Blu-ray sales.The profit motive for 3D is huge - it's out and it's not going away, any more than next year's Britney Spears will.Maybe - maybe - I'll change my mind when someone figures out to incorporate Johnny Lee's head tracking system for *all* viewers in the room.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw [youtube.com]I'm not reactionary to 3D because it's new - I'm reactionary to it because it's yet one more thing that doesn't hold the studios feet to the fire to give us better movies and better distribution models (read: no DRM), but it sure is lining their coffers like crazy.
The more of this that gets consumed, the more they're validated in their practices - simple.And I note a distinct lack of BD DRM complaints when people discuss Avatar - no, that's all about how it looked in the theater and gee, can't wait for 3D at home.My favorite quote on that movie came from my local indie newspaper: there's no question that Avatar is a great movie, but only time will prove if it's a good movie.For me, this phrase has never been truer: nothing to see here, move along.I'll see you in the balcony - tonight, they're showing Ghost Dog, and I highly recommend it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512914</id>
	<title>Re:Own them all!</title>
	<author>Darth\_brooks</author>
	<datestamp>1268854860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Blade Runner 3D Olifactory Special Release</i></p><p>Director's commentary:</p><p>"I guess I should warn the audience now that the caterers served nothing but beans for the majority of the shoot. Enjoy the show!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blade Runner 3D Olifactory Special ReleaseDirector 's commentary : " I guess I should warn the audience now that the caterers served nothing but beans for the majority of the shoot .
Enjoy the show !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blade Runner 3D Olifactory Special ReleaseDirector's commentary:"I guess I should warn the audience now that the caterers served nothing but beans for the majority of the shoot.
Enjoy the show!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512306</id>
	<title>In a nutshell</title>
	<author>Silentknyght</author>
	<datestamp>1268853120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA in a nutshell: studios *could* do it well, like Avatar, which costs really big bucks and is time consuming, but they're more likely to do it on the cheap just to get a few more bucks out of the consumer.</p><p>
I suppose its' a scam only if they do it on the cheap.  The headline's a bit more sensationalist than the article, which is more measured in its position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA in a nutshell : studios * could * do it well , like Avatar , which costs really big bucks and is time consuming , but they 're more likely to do it on the cheap just to get a few more bucks out of the consumer .
I suppose its ' a scam only if they do it on the cheap .
The headline 's a bit more sensationalist than the article , which is more measured in its position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA in a nutshell: studios *could* do it well, like Avatar, which costs really big bucks and is time consuming, but they're more likely to do it on the cheap just to get a few more bucks out of the consumer.
I suppose its' a scam only if they do it on the cheap.
The headline's a bit more sensationalist than the article, which is more measured in its position.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515474</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>Shirakawasuna</author>
	<datestamp>1268820960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia is wrong.  IMAX 3D is and has been linear polarization for quite some time now (when it wasn't the shuttered glasses).  The only way it could be accurate is if IMAX switched within the last few weeks, which would not represent an Avatar experience anyways.<br> <br> <br>

I know this because I've worked at an IMAX theater for ~4 years.  Here's a quick test to see if the 3D glasses you are using are circularly or linearly polarized: <br> <br>
1. Get to pairs of glasses (borrow a friend's).<br> <br>
2. Place one of the lenses of one pair in front of one from the other so that you're looking through two lenses at once.<br> <br>
3. Rotate the glasses, see if the light getting through cycle through black/clear (a period of 180).<br> <br> <br>

Linearly polarized glasses will do this, since it relies on the angle at which you overlap the glasses/projected image.  Circularly polarized will not and will be either all-dark or all-light regardless of rotation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is wrong .
IMAX 3D is and has been linear polarization for quite some time now ( when it was n't the shuttered glasses ) .
The only way it could be accurate is if IMAX switched within the last few weeks , which would not represent an Avatar experience anyways .
I know this because I 've worked at an IMAX theater for ~ 4 years .
Here 's a quick test to see if the 3D glasses you are using are circularly or linearly polarized : 1 .
Get to pairs of glasses ( borrow a friend 's ) .
2. Place one of the lenses of one pair in front of one from the other so that you 're looking through two lenses at once .
3. Rotate the glasses , see if the light getting through cycle through black/clear ( a period of 180 ) .
Linearly polarized glasses will do this , since it relies on the angle at which you overlap the glasses/projected image .
Circularly polarized will not and will be either all-dark or all-light regardless of rotation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is wrong.
IMAX 3D is and has been linear polarization for quite some time now (when it wasn't the shuttered glasses).
The only way it could be accurate is if IMAX switched within the last few weeks, which would not represent an Avatar experience anyways.
I know this because I've worked at an IMAX theater for ~4 years.
Here's a quick test to see if the 3D glasses you are using are circularly or linearly polarized:  
1.
Get to pairs of glasses (borrow a friend's).
2. Place one of the lenses of one pair in front of one from the other so that you're looking through two lenses at once.
3. Rotate the glasses, see if the light getting through cycle through black/clear (a period of 180).
Linearly polarized glasses will do this, since it relies on the angle at which you overlap the glasses/projected image.
Circularly polarized will not and will be either all-dark or all-light regardless of rotation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514016</id>
	<title>Re:Own them all!</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1268858940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hollywood has been putting out Olifactory Releases for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hollywood has been putting out Olifactory Releases for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hollywood has been putting out Olifactory Releases for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515656</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>tentimestwenty</author>
	<datestamp>1268821860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3D gives me motion sickness. Surely the day will come when I and many others won't be able to watch a regular 2D movie in a theatre. If you ask me, it's 1 step forward, 2 steps back from an overall marketshare standpoint.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3D gives me motion sickness .
Surely the day will come when I and many others wo n't be able to watch a regular 2D movie in a theatre .
If you ask me , it 's 1 step forward , 2 steps back from an overall marketshare standpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D gives me motion sickness.
Surely the day will come when I and many others won't be able to watch a regular 2D movie in a theatre.
If you ask me, it's 1 step forward, 2 steps back from an overall marketshare standpoint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512302</id>
	<title>Binocular Impaired</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268853120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D be damned. I have amblyopia. All 3D movies give me a headache. Me and 3 million other people in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D be damned .
I have amblyopia .
All 3D movies give me a headache .
Me and 3 million other people in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D be damned.
I have amblyopia.
All 3D movies give me a headache.
Me and 3 million other people in the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513798</id>
	<title>Re:Own them all!</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1268857920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The dripping sound you heard was George Lucas drooling who just had an idea for marketing Star Wars. Again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The dripping sound you heard was George Lucas drooling who just had an idea for marketing Star Wars .
Again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dripping sound you heard was George Lucas drooling who just had an idea for marketing Star Wars.
Again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512488</id>
	<title>Converting old movies to 3D is...</title>
	<author>BergZ</author>
	<datestamp>1268853600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>just a ploy to get you to buy the same movie one more time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>just a ploy to get you to buy the same movie one more time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just a ploy to get you to buy the same movie one more time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512312</id>
	<title>Mostly hype, but can be done effectively</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1268853180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, Avatar was made made in 3D and it shows, it was very watchable even with the glasses (dunno what the article's author Alexander Murphy was going on about, his eyesight must be ruined already). Didn't notice any problems but it didn't redefine my life.</p><p>Converting 2D films into 3D is just not going to be the same. Even if you can extract objects from scenes into an accurate 3D space, you're going to have to generate content that is obscured in the 2D original, and this is surely going to be noticeable?! The article suggests it would look layered, like an old 80s arcade game with parallax scrolling.</p><p>Maybe 3D scenes could be re-rendered, an option for Titanic 3D surely, but you're not going to get any better 3D depth when Kate Winslet is posing for the painting, only the CG parts (and reworking them is probably a good idea anyway).</p><p>At least the 3D sports broadcasts are being done with proper 3D cameras.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , Avatar was made made in 3D and it shows , it was very watchable even with the glasses ( dunno what the article 's author Alexander Murphy was going on about , his eyesight must be ruined already ) .
Did n't notice any problems but it did n't redefine my life.Converting 2D films into 3D is just not going to be the same .
Even if you can extract objects from scenes into an accurate 3D space , you 're going to have to generate content that is obscured in the 2D original , and this is surely going to be noticeable ? !
The article suggests it would look layered , like an old 80s arcade game with parallax scrolling.Maybe 3D scenes could be re-rendered , an option for Titanic 3D surely , but you 're not going to get any better 3D depth when Kate Winslet is posing for the painting , only the CG parts ( and reworking them is probably a good idea anyway ) .At least the 3D sports broadcasts are being done with proper 3D cameras .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, Avatar was made made in 3D and it shows, it was very watchable even with the glasses (dunno what the article's author Alexander Murphy was going on about, his eyesight must be ruined already).
Didn't notice any problems but it didn't redefine my life.Converting 2D films into 3D is just not going to be the same.
Even if you can extract objects from scenes into an accurate 3D space, you're going to have to generate content that is obscured in the 2D original, and this is surely going to be noticeable?!
The article suggests it would look layered, like an old 80s arcade game with parallax scrolling.Maybe 3D scenes could be re-rendered, an option for Titanic 3D surely, but you're not going to get any better 3D depth when Kate Winslet is posing for the painting, only the CG parts (and reworking them is probably a good idea anyway).At least the 3D sports broadcasts are being done with proper 3D cameras.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31519978</id>
	<title>Yup, Alice in Wonderland was horrible.</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1268903700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In ways the movie reminded me of the first days of stereo music where people were too keen to demonstrate that they were "stereo" rather than use it for more natural sound.  Classic example: "Play that funky music" by Wild Cherry.  With 3D too there are some compulsory elements, like the things that fly "out" of the screen (every 3D movie so far has had them, even the red/green ones).</p><p>Alice in Wonderland has what I call "cardboard" 3D, 3D as 2D animators make it by putting various "walls" in to create the illusion of depth, and so wastes great potential.  I think the good news is that Avatar really set a high standard to compete against (it's a real credit to the innovation in that movie that they've gone so far to get it right), so anyone who's seen that will recognise the cheap rubbish for the con it is and avoid it.  A full animation like Shrek *may* get it right, we'll see.  It's early days..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In ways the movie reminded me of the first days of stereo music where people were too keen to demonstrate that they were " stereo " rather than use it for more natural sound .
Classic example : " Play that funky music " by Wild Cherry .
With 3D too there are some compulsory elements , like the things that fly " out " of the screen ( every 3D movie so far has had them , even the red/green ones ) .Alice in Wonderland has what I call " cardboard " 3D , 3D as 2D animators make it by putting various " walls " in to create the illusion of depth , and so wastes great potential .
I think the good news is that Avatar really set a high standard to compete against ( it 's a real credit to the innovation in that movie that they 've gone so far to get it right ) , so anyone who 's seen that will recognise the cheap rubbish for the con it is and avoid it .
A full animation like Shrek * may * get it right , we 'll see .
It 's early days. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In ways the movie reminded me of the first days of stereo music where people were too keen to demonstrate that they were "stereo" rather than use it for more natural sound.
Classic example: "Play that funky music" by Wild Cherry.
With 3D too there are some compulsory elements, like the things that fly "out" of the screen (every 3D movie so far has had them, even the red/green ones).Alice in Wonderland has what I call "cardboard" 3D, 3D as 2D animators make it by putting various "walls" in to create the illusion of depth, and so wastes great potential.
I think the good news is that Avatar really set a high standard to compete against (it's a real credit to the innovation in that movie that they've gone so far to get it right), so anyone who's seen that will recognise the cheap rubbish for the con it is and avoid it.
A full animation like Shrek *may* get it right, we'll see.
It's early days..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517082</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268829600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#IMAX\_3D" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">IMAX 3D uses circular polarization</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div><p>Not all IMAX theaters use circular polarized lenses. Your wikipedia link specifically says they use linear ones, and the glasses I snagged from my local IMAX are linear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , IMAX 3D uses circular polarization [ wikipedia.org ] .Not all IMAX theaters use circular polarized lenses .
Your wikipedia link specifically says they use linear ones , and the glasses I snagged from my local IMAX are linear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, IMAX 3D uses circular polarization [wikipedia.org].Not all IMAX theaters use circular polarized lenses.
Your wikipedia link specifically says they use linear ones, and the glasses I snagged from my local IMAX are linear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31519786</id>
	<title>Chicken and egg</title>
	<author>DarkofPeace</author>
	<datestamp>1268943480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3D in the theater is not just about selling overpriced tickets. We all have been reading about new 3D TVs and 3D bluray. What are we going to watch on all these new toys? Why all the great new 3D movies and 3D remakes. No media makes for poor sellers for new players.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3D in the theater is not just about selling overpriced tickets .
We all have been reading about new 3D TVs and 3D bluray .
What are we going to watch on all these new toys ?
Why all the great new 3D movies and 3D remakes .
No media makes for poor sellers for new players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D in the theater is not just about selling overpriced tickets.
We all have been reading about new 3D TVs and 3D bluray.
What are we going to watch on all these new toys?
Why all the great new 3D movies and 3D remakes.
No media makes for poor sellers for new players.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514452</id>
	<title>Its high time for higher framerate</title>
	<author>electrogeist</author>
	<datestamp>1268817360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw Avatar in 3D (twice) and I do like the new polarization method versus the old color seperation method, which always made colors weird for me.  However the low FPS of movies is much more annoying with 3D.  Quick moving objects in a close z-axis really strobe across the screen</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw Avatar in 3D ( twice ) and I do like the new polarization method versus the old color seperation method , which always made colors weird for me .
However the low FPS of movies is much more annoying with 3D .
Quick moving objects in a close z-axis really strobe across the screen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw Avatar in 3D (twice) and I do like the new polarization method versus the old color seperation method, which always made colors weird for me.
However the low FPS of movies is much more annoying with 3D.
Quick moving objects in a close z-axis really strobe across the screen</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514274</id>
	<title>Re:The glasses suck terribly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268816700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>All the 3-d glasses are is a pair of polarized filters at different angles. I have a pair of polarized sunglasses. I imagine it would be possible to get a pair of prescription sunglasses with the right angles of polarization... but they're never going to offer glasses with your specific prescription at a theater, and if you really need glasses then it'll give you a headache to use non-prescription ones. That pretty much leaves inventing clip-on ones, or bringing your own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the 3-d glasses are is a pair of polarized filters at different angles .
I have a pair of polarized sunglasses .
I imagine it would be possible to get a pair of prescription sunglasses with the right angles of polarization... but they 're never going to offer glasses with your specific prescription at a theater , and if you really need glasses then it 'll give you a headache to use non-prescription ones .
That pretty much leaves inventing clip-on ones , or bringing your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the 3-d glasses are is a pair of polarized filters at different angles.
I have a pair of polarized sunglasses.
I imagine it would be possible to get a pair of prescription sunglasses with the right angles of polarization... but they're never going to offer glasses with your specific prescription at a theater, and if you really need glasses then it'll give you a headache to use non-prescription ones.
That pretty much leaves inventing clip-on ones, or bringing your own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31533230</id>
	<title>Re:but 3D home theater is next.</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1268937000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have 144fps digital projectors in the theater... and they're projectors. So adapting the 3D effect to the projector is far easier than anything you can do to your TV to enable the same effect. Or just use a second, synchronized projector. These are all via digital projectors (some 4K, but most in use are 2K projectors, essentially the same resolution as a good HDTV).</p><p>Most of the projectors are DLP. Home DLP televisions could easily employ the same technology. Before LED or laser DLP models, they used a single projection bulb and spinning color wheel to time division multiplex a single DLP chip... they're wicked fast. To get 3D, the same effect could be achieved using a wheel with alternating clockwise and counterclockwise polarization.. just like the Real3D glasses. So then yeah, you could use the cheap theater style glasses.</p><p>The one flaw in this... DLP has kind of lost in the market. Not because it's inferior (very comparable to modern dynamic LCD or Plasma) or expensive (nope, actually cheaper).. but the one inexcusable flaw... they don't hang on your wall. Kind of a shame. You can't do the polarizing trick with either plasma or LCD... in fact, LCDs already do polarizing tricks (try 'em out with those 3D glasses).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have 144fps digital projectors in the theater... and they 're projectors .
So adapting the 3D effect to the projector is far easier than anything you can do to your TV to enable the same effect .
Or just use a second , synchronized projector .
These are all via digital projectors ( some 4K , but most in use are 2K projectors , essentially the same resolution as a good HDTV ) .Most of the projectors are DLP .
Home DLP televisions could easily employ the same technology .
Before LED or laser DLP models , they used a single projection bulb and spinning color wheel to time division multiplex a single DLP chip... they 're wicked fast .
To get 3D , the same effect could be achieved using a wheel with alternating clockwise and counterclockwise polarization.. just like the Real3D glasses .
So then yeah , you could use the cheap theater style glasses.The one flaw in this... DLP has kind of lost in the market .
Not because it 's inferior ( very comparable to modern dynamic LCD or Plasma ) or expensive ( nope , actually cheaper ) .. but the one inexcusable flaw... they do n't hang on your wall .
Kind of a shame .
You ca n't do the polarizing trick with either plasma or LCD... in fact , LCDs already do polarizing tricks ( try 'em out with those 3D glasses ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have 144fps digital projectors in the theater... and they're projectors.
So adapting the 3D effect to the projector is far easier than anything you can do to your TV to enable the same effect.
Or just use a second, synchronized projector.
These are all via digital projectors (some 4K, but most in use are 2K projectors, essentially the same resolution as a good HDTV).Most of the projectors are DLP.
Home DLP televisions could easily employ the same technology.
Before LED or laser DLP models, they used a single projection bulb and spinning color wheel to time division multiplex a single DLP chip... they're wicked fast.
To get 3D, the same effect could be achieved using a wheel with alternating clockwise and counterclockwise polarization.. just like the Real3D glasses.
So then yeah, you could use the cheap theater style glasses.The one flaw in this... DLP has kind of lost in the market.
Not because it's inferior (very comparable to modern dynamic LCD or Plasma) or expensive (nope, actually cheaper).. but the one inexcusable flaw... they don't hang on your wall.
Kind of a shame.
You can't do the polarizing trick with either plasma or LCD... in fact, LCDs already do polarizing tricks (try 'em out with those 3D glasses).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31520784</id>
	<title>Re:Alice</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1268914440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disliked it because it was a 2D film edited for 3D, so it looked like a pop-up picture book. It was especially noticeable when the army of playing cards was marching; I felt like I was watching one of those rubbish lever devices children create with split pins and cardboard.<br> <br>Avatar was rendered and filmed specifically for 3D, and included all of the proper camera angle and rendering POV alterations which it required. Alice in Wonderland used the same image and had a guy put the appropriate filter on scene elements to butcher the effect. It looked 3D, but only in that the characters looked like they were walking <i>over</i> the scene, not on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disliked it because it was a 2D film edited for 3D , so it looked like a pop-up picture book .
It was especially noticeable when the army of playing cards was marching ; I felt like I was watching one of those rubbish lever devices children create with split pins and cardboard .
Avatar was rendered and filmed specifically for 3D , and included all of the proper camera angle and rendering POV alterations which it required .
Alice in Wonderland used the same image and had a guy put the appropriate filter on scene elements to butcher the effect .
It looked 3D , but only in that the characters looked like they were walking over the scene , not on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disliked it because it was a 2D film edited for 3D, so it looked like a pop-up picture book.
It was especially noticeable when the army of playing cards was marching; I felt like I was watching one of those rubbish lever devices children create with split pins and cardboard.
Avatar was rendered and filmed specifically for 3D, and included all of the proper camera angle and rendering POV alterations which it required.
Alice in Wonderland used the same image and had a guy put the appropriate filter on scene elements to butcher the effect.
It looked 3D, but only in that the characters looked like they were walking over the scene, not on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512680</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>shadowfaxcrx</author>
	<datestamp>1268854140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Avatar was the only one I didn't* get a headache in. My SO loves 3d movies, so I have to see. . pretty much all of them. I remember my eyeballs actually hurting after Coraline. In addition to the problems listed in the article, 3d shooting requires the director to really think about the human eye. Cameron got it pretty close to right in Avatar, because he picked what we were supposed to be focusing on, and made everything else slightly out of focus. Coraline made everything, no matter how far away, in focus, and so the eye couldn't figure out what to do. It knew stuff was 3d because it was layered over other things, but it couldn't judge distance accurately because everything had the same focus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avatar was the only one I did n't * get a headache in .
My SO loves 3d movies , so I have to see .
. pretty much all of them .
I remember my eyeballs actually hurting after Coraline .
In addition to the problems listed in the article , 3d shooting requires the director to really think about the human eye .
Cameron got it pretty close to right in Avatar , because he picked what we were supposed to be focusing on , and made everything else slightly out of focus .
Coraline made everything , no matter how far away , in focus , and so the eye could n't figure out what to do .
It knew stuff was 3d because it was layered over other things , but it could n't judge distance accurately because everything had the same focus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avatar was the only one I didn't* get a headache in.
My SO loves 3d movies, so I have to see.
. pretty much all of them.
I remember my eyeballs actually hurting after Coraline.
In addition to the problems listed in the article, 3d shooting requires the director to really think about the human eye.
Cameron got it pretty close to right in Avatar, because he picked what we were supposed to be focusing on, and made everything else slightly out of focus.
Coraline made everything, no matter how far away, in focus, and so the eye couldn't figure out what to do.
It knew stuff was 3d because it was layered over other things, but it couldn't judge distance accurately because everything had the same focus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512864</id>
	<title>Serves you right</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1268854680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're douchey enough to go see the movies that get 3d-ified, and they suck, you only have yourself to blame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're douchey enough to go see the movies that get 3d-ified , and they suck , you only have yourself to blame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're douchey enough to go see the movies that get 3d-ified, and they suck, you only have yourself to blame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517092</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on Which 3D Tech...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268829720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think your totally wrong there regarding tilting your head. No matter how far you tilt your head (hell, stand on your head if you want) you are not going to change how the images overlap. This is a function of the projection, not your head. The most you could do would be to lose 3d or reverse it, and only if you were using linear polarization, not circular. With circular, I cant see any way to 'overlap the images vertically' as you say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think your totally wrong there regarding tilting your head .
No matter how far you tilt your head ( hell , stand on your head if you want ) you are not going to change how the images overlap .
This is a function of the projection , not your head .
The most you could do would be to lose 3d or reverse it , and only if you were using linear polarization , not circular .
With circular , I cant see any way to 'overlap the images vertically ' as you say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think your totally wrong there regarding tilting your head.
No matter how far you tilt your head (hell, stand on your head if you want) you are not going to change how the images overlap.
This is a function of the projection, not your head.
The most you could do would be to lose 3d or reverse it, and only if you were using linear polarization, not circular.
With circular, I cant see any way to 'overlap the images vertically' as you say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512494</id>
	<title>Bad summary.</title>
	<author>kurokame</author>
	<datestamp>1268853600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary overlooks some important points in the article, thereby giving a completely different take-home message. For example: <i> "The good Avatar 3D experience happened because James Cameron is a technically savvy director, and thus the 3D aspect of Avatar  was technically well executed. When done right it allows the viewer to more seamlessly enjoy a 3D film."</i>

<br> <br>The author is not arguing that 3D is a scam. The author is arguing that people are jumping on the 3D bandwagon because they smell money while not always delivering a good product. Specifically:

<br> <br>* Retrofitting 2D movies for 3D does not work. You can fake it, but the result is crappy if you didn't actually shoot it for 3D.
<br>* There's no point to using 3D if you're not going to use it creatively. The result will be worse than if you just kept your mediocre movie in 2D.
<br>* The quality of the result is strongly affected by the quality of the 3D implementation.

<br> <br>And that's all, folks. It's a good article to read if you're not familiar with the issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary overlooks some important points in the article , thereby giving a completely different take-home message .
For example : " The good Avatar 3D experience happened because James Cameron is a technically savvy director , and thus the 3D aspect of Avatar was technically well executed .
When done right it allows the viewer to more seamlessly enjoy a 3D film .
" The author is not arguing that 3D is a scam .
The author is arguing that people are jumping on the 3D bandwagon because they smell money while not always delivering a good product .
Specifically : * Retrofitting 2D movies for 3D does not work .
You can fake it , but the result is crappy if you did n't actually shoot it for 3D .
* There 's no point to using 3D if you 're not going to use it creatively .
The result will be worse than if you just kept your mediocre movie in 2D .
* The quality of the result is strongly affected by the quality of the 3D implementation .
And that 's all , folks .
It 's a good article to read if you 're not familiar with the issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary overlooks some important points in the article, thereby giving a completely different take-home message.
For example:  "The good Avatar 3D experience happened because James Cameron is a technically savvy director, and thus the 3D aspect of Avatar  was technically well executed.
When done right it allows the viewer to more seamlessly enjoy a 3D film.
"

 The author is not arguing that 3D is a scam.
The author is arguing that people are jumping on the 3D bandwagon because they smell money while not always delivering a good product.
Specifically:

 * Retrofitting 2D movies for 3D does not work.
You can fake it, but the result is crappy if you didn't actually shoot it for 3D.
* There's no point to using 3D if you're not going to use it creatively.
The result will be worse than if you just kept your mediocre movie in 2D.
* The quality of the result is strongly affected by the quality of the 3D implementation.
And that's all, folks.
It's a good article to read if you're not familiar with the issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31521552</id>
	<title>thanks okay, they'll blame it on piracy</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1268920920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when this all fails, they are going to blame it on piracy anyways.</p><p>In fact, they know 3d won't work, they are just going to use it to get more DRM hooks into us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when this all fails , they are going to blame it on piracy anyways.In fact , they know 3d wo n't work , they are just going to use it to get more DRM hooks into us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when this all fails, they are going to blame it on piracy anyways.In fact, they know 3d won't work, they are just going to use it to get more DRM hooks into us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516918</id>
	<title>Umm...no</title>
	<author>Chicken\_Kickers</author>
	<datestamp>1268828400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, I don't want to be able to pan around while watching Lord of the Rings or any other movie. If I wanted to do that, I will play a computer game, where the ability to pan around is important to control RTS units for example. If I could look around a scene in a movie, I could easily miss important plot points and ruin my viewing experience. It would also make making a movie more complicated for the director. He now has to make sure that the filmed scene is perfect all 360 degrees instead of just the scene in front of the camera.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I do n't want to be able to pan around while watching Lord of the Rings or any other movie .
If I wanted to do that , I will play a computer game , where the ability to pan around is important to control RTS units for example .
If I could look around a scene in a movie , I could easily miss important plot points and ruin my viewing experience .
It would also make making a movie more complicated for the director .
He now has to make sure that the filmed scene is perfect all 360 degrees instead of just the scene in front of the camera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I don't want to be able to pan around while watching Lord of the Rings or any other movie.
If I wanted to do that, I will play a computer game, where the ability to pan around is important to control RTS units for example.
If I could look around a scene in a movie, I could easily miss important plot points and ruin my viewing experience.
It would also make making a movie more complicated for the director.
He now has to make sure that the filmed scene is perfect all 360 degrees instead of just the scene in front of the camera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515856</id>
	<title>Re:The glasses suck terribly</title>
	<author>Tanman</author>
	<datestamp>1268822760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.rainbowsymphony.com/polarizedclipons.html" title="rainbowsymphony.com">http://www.rainbowsymphony.com/polarizedclipons.html</a> [rainbowsymphony.com]</p><p>Here you go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.rainbowsymphony.com/polarizedclipons.html [ rainbowsymphony.com ] Here you go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.rainbowsymphony.com/polarizedclipons.html [rainbowsymphony.com]Here you go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513882</id>
	<title>Re:The hidden perk of 3D...</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268858340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google StreetView LIVE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google StreetView LIVE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google StreetView LIVE!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516194</id>
	<title>Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1268824140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me, my two eyes can't see 3D with and without my normal glasses and 3D glasses. I just don't see them with last year's Super Bowl TV ads., Chuck 3D episode, California Adventure's 3D shows, Avatar (RealD at Arclight Dome), etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( I will take over 2D stuff with nice digital screen (can't stand the shaky film format with not so bright colors).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , my two eyes ca n't see 3D with and without my normal glasses and 3D glasses .
I just do n't see them with last year 's Super Bowl TV ads. , Chuck 3D episode , California Adventure 's 3D shows , Avatar ( RealD at Arclight Dome ) , etc .
: ( I will take over 2D stuff with nice digital screen ( ca n't stand the shaky film format with not so bright colors ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, my two eyes can't see 3D with and without my normal glasses and 3D glasses.
I just don't see them with last year's Super Bowl TV ads., Chuck 3D episode, California Adventure's 3D shows, Avatar (RealD at Arclight Dome), etc.
:( I will take over 2D stuff with nice digital screen (can't stand the shaky film format with not so bright colors).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513076</id>
	<title>Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers</title>
	<author>NerdyLove</author>
	<datestamp>1268855460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Me too! Well, I have two, but only one works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Me too !
Well , I have two , but only one works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me too!
Well, I have two, but only one works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512268</id>
	<title>I am an audience member.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268853060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I go to the cinema a lot. I watch pretty much all the new releases. I always have. I don't agree that all 2D-to-3D releases are bad. I've rather enjoyed them. Ok, Avatar's 3D effect was better than Alice's. Nevermind, I paid my money and I walked away at the end of it feeling I'd had a good time nonetheless.</p><p>I certainly wasn't under the impression anyone had scammed me. I've read the article. I'm still not. I got what I paid for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I go to the cinema a lot .
I watch pretty much all the new releases .
I always have .
I do n't agree that all 2D-to-3D releases are bad .
I 've rather enjoyed them .
Ok , Avatar 's 3D effect was better than Alice 's .
Nevermind , I paid my money and I walked away at the end of it feeling I 'd had a good time nonetheless.I certainly was n't under the impression anyone had scammed me .
I 've read the article .
I 'm still not .
I got what I paid for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I go to the cinema a lot.
I watch pretty much all the new releases.
I always have.
I don't agree that all 2D-to-3D releases are bad.
I've rather enjoyed them.
Ok, Avatar's 3D effect was better than Alice's.
Nevermind, I paid my money and I walked away at the end of it feeling I'd had a good time nonetheless.I certainly wasn't under the impression anyone had scammed me.
I've read the article.
I'm still not.
I got what I paid for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512780</id>
	<title>Re:The hidden perk of 3D...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268854380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who  cares?  I can't tell HD vs D,  BlueRay vs DVD, or 80 fps vs 180 fps.  The only reason <i>you</i> can tell the resolution is because your TV is 40 inches in diameter, but my laptop has a perfectly fine DVD player - so get off my lawn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?
I ca n't tell HD vs D , BlueRay vs DVD , or 80 fps vs 180 fps .
The only reason you can tell the resolution is because your TV is 40 inches in diameter , but my laptop has a perfectly fine DVD player - so get off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who  cares?
I can't tell HD vs D,  BlueRay vs DVD, or 80 fps vs 180 fps.
The only reason you can tell the resolution is because your TV is 40 inches in diameter, but my laptop has a perfectly fine DVD player - so get off my lawn!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514810</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>WarlockD</author>
	<datestamp>1268818560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saw it in IMAX 3D, Real3D and straight digital.  For some reaosn IMAX came out duel/fuzy for me.</p><p>But lets be fair.  I remember, as a kid, watching the IMAX at my science museum.  It was HUGE and cool!  I was excited that I was riding that roller coaster or on the top of that mountain dive.   However theaters say they "have" IMAX and its no more than a bigger screen.</p><p>After watching it in all 3 formats, I honestly liked the straight digital most.  While Real3D was the best in my opinion, it still looked clearer and brighter on flat digital.</p><p>Saw Alice in normal film (Movie Tavern doesn't have high end stuff, but booze!) and Real3D.  It was BORING!  But if you watched it in 3D it was ok at best.  Meh.  Had a lot of 3D fuzzy edge artifacts though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saw it in IMAX 3D , Real3D and straight digital .
For some reaosn IMAX came out duel/fuzy for me.But lets be fair .
I remember , as a kid , watching the IMAX at my science museum .
It was HUGE and cool !
I was excited that I was riding that roller coaster or on the top of that mountain dive .
However theaters say they " have " IMAX and its no more than a bigger screen.After watching it in all 3 formats , I honestly liked the straight digital most .
While Real3D was the best in my opinion , it still looked clearer and brighter on flat digital.Saw Alice in normal film ( Movie Tavern does n't have high end stuff , but booze !
) and Real3D .
It was BORING !
But if you watched it in 3D it was ok at best .
Meh. Had a lot of 3D fuzzy edge artifacts though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saw it in IMAX 3D, Real3D and straight digital.
For some reaosn IMAX came out duel/fuzy for me.But lets be fair.
I remember, as a kid, watching the IMAX at my science museum.
It was HUGE and cool!
I was excited that I was riding that roller coaster or on the top of that mountain dive.
However theaters say they "have" IMAX and its no more than a bigger screen.After watching it in all 3 formats, I honestly liked the straight digital most.
While Real3D was the best in my opinion, it still looked clearer and brighter on flat digital.Saw Alice in normal film (Movie Tavern doesn't have high end stuff, but booze!
) and Real3D.
It was BORING!
But if you watched it in 3D it was ok at best.
Meh.  Had a lot of 3D fuzzy edge artifacts though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515192</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268820000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, yes you did miss something apparently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , yes you did miss something apparently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, yes you did miss something apparently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515546</id>
	<title>Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268821260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That must be frustrating.  Though I imagine similar sentiments among people with one working ear when stereo movies first came out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That must be frustrating .
Though I imagine similar sentiments among people with one working ear when stereo movies first came out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That must be frustrating.
Though I imagine similar sentiments among people with one working ear when stereo movies first came out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31520128</id>
	<title>Re:Alice</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1268906040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that's not my point- I agree piracy is frankly what the movie industry deserves for it's price fixing.</p><p>My point is merely that 3D is an attempt by them to make money even in the face of piracy, yet people are slagging them off for doing that now. This gives the suggestion that people believe they shouldn't be able ot make any money at all from their production which is wrong- I'm fine with piracy, I believe it's a valid backlash to the over the top pricing of DVDs and so forth, but what I have a problem with is this idea that movies shouldn't be able to make any money.</p><p>Why slag off 3D if it let's Hollywood remain profitable so that Hollywood no longer has to care about pirates meaning pirates can still pirate away, and Hollywood can still make money from 3D ticket sales? It's win-win for everyone- both sides get what they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's not my point- I agree piracy is frankly what the movie industry deserves for it 's price fixing.My point is merely that 3D is an attempt by them to make money even in the face of piracy , yet people are slagging them off for doing that now .
This gives the suggestion that people believe they should n't be able ot make any money at all from their production which is wrong- I 'm fine with piracy , I believe it 's a valid backlash to the over the top pricing of DVDs and so forth , but what I have a problem with is this idea that movies should n't be able to make any money.Why slag off 3D if it let 's Hollywood remain profitable so that Hollywood no longer has to care about pirates meaning pirates can still pirate away , and Hollywood can still make money from 3D ticket sales ?
It 's win-win for everyone- both sides get what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's not my point- I agree piracy is frankly what the movie industry deserves for it's price fixing.My point is merely that 3D is an attempt by them to make money even in the face of piracy, yet people are slagging them off for doing that now.
This gives the suggestion that people believe they shouldn't be able ot make any money at all from their production which is wrong- I'm fine with piracy, I believe it's a valid backlash to the over the top pricing of DVDs and so forth, but what I have a problem with is this idea that movies shouldn't be able to make any money.Why slag off 3D if it let's Hollywood remain profitable so that Hollywood no longer has to care about pirates meaning pirates can still pirate away, and Hollywood can still make money from 3D ticket sales?
It's win-win for everyone- both sides get what they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514652</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>pnuema</author>
	<datestamp>1268817960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, you did. The fact that you didn't notice the 3D showed how well it was done. My wife couldn't stand the movie because she was constantly distracted by the ever-present 3D.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you did .
The fact that you did n't notice the 3D showed how well it was done .
My wife could n't stand the movie because she was constantly distracted by the ever-present 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you did.
The fact that you didn't notice the 3D showed how well it was done.
My wife couldn't stand the movie because she was constantly distracted by the ever-present 3D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515862</id>
	<title>Re:The hidden perk of 3D...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1268822760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Higher resolution than HD...thoughts of diminishing returns come immediately to mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Higher resolution than HD...thoughts of diminishing returns come immediately to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Higher resolution than HD...thoughts of diminishing returns come immediately to mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31519002</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar was teh sh@t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268845680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like you don't see a lot of points that others would appreciate if you did. Why bother writing if you don't respect your readers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like you do n't see a lot of points that others would appreciate if you did .
Why bother writing if you do n't respect your readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like you don't see a lot of points that others would appreciate if you did.
Why bother writing if you don't respect your readers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513822</id>
	<title>Current 3D tech is still way short</title>
	<author>dalesc</author>
	<datestamp>1268858040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that while there is now a perception of depth, the viewer isn't able to focus on what takes their attention. If the camera is focused on the foreground and you want to look at something in the background, it will be blurry. Your eye attempts to correct this but it doesn't work. This is confusing to the optical system and it's why a some people come out of 3D viewings with a headache. It's not at all obvious how this can be corrected without a personalised viewing experience that detects the viewers point of interest and brings it into focus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that while there is now a perception of depth , the viewer is n't able to focus on what takes their attention .
If the camera is focused on the foreground and you want to look at something in the background , it will be blurry .
Your eye attempts to correct this but it does n't work .
This is confusing to the optical system and it 's why a some people come out of 3D viewings with a headache .
It 's not at all obvious how this can be corrected without a personalised viewing experience that detects the viewers point of interest and brings it into focus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that while there is now a perception of depth, the viewer isn't able to focus on what takes their attention.
If the camera is focused on the foreground and you want to look at something in the background, it will be blurry.
Your eye attempts to correct this but it doesn't work.
This is confusing to the optical system and it's why a some people come out of 3D viewings with a headache.
It's not at all obvious how this can be corrected without a personalised viewing experience that detects the viewers point of interest and brings it into focus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512366</id>
	<title>desperation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268853300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they think that 3d is their ticket to get people back into the theatre, having been losing their ability to pull people into movies for quite some time. Wishful thinking. They are just accelerating their decline as far as I'm concerned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they think that 3d is their ticket to get people back into the theatre , having been losing their ability to pull people into movies for quite some time .
Wishful thinking .
They are just accelerating their decline as far as I 'm concerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they think that 3d is their ticket to get people back into the theatre, having been losing their ability to pull people into movies for quite some time.
Wishful thinking.
They are just accelerating their decline as far as I'm concerned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512654</id>
	<title>New tech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268854020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D isn't inherently bad, but it's still in the gimmick phase. The simple fact is it's a new technology (anaglyphic doesn't count) and filmmakers aren't that familiar with it (or hate it just as much as you do.) So you're going to see several movies crash head-first into that learning curve.</p><p>And, hey, if 3D makes you sick or hurts, watch the 2D version. It's cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D is n't inherently bad , but it 's still in the gimmick phase .
The simple fact is it 's a new technology ( anaglyphic does n't count ) and filmmakers are n't that familiar with it ( or hate it just as much as you do .
) So you 're going to see several movies crash head-first into that learning curve.And , hey , if 3D makes you sick or hurts , watch the 2D version .
It 's cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D isn't inherently bad, but it's still in the gimmick phase.
The simple fact is it's a new technology (anaglyphic doesn't count) and filmmakers aren't that familiar with it (or hate it just as much as you do.
) So you're going to see several movies crash head-first into that learning curve.And, hey, if 3D makes you sick or hurts, watch the 2D version.
It's cheaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515544</id>
	<title>Scam definition?</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1268821260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So "scam" is now the equivalent business concept of "striking while the iron is hot". Interesting.</p><p>By the way, the best part of Avatar at my local Imax theater was not the big screen or the 3d--it was the awesome sound system.  Maybe theaters should work on having a nice 2d image (as opposed to dim/murky grainy film technology of 30 years ago) and decent surround sound before worrying about 3d.</p><p>And there is no way I'm missing Toy Story 3, even if it IS in 3D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So " scam " is now the equivalent business concept of " striking while the iron is hot " .
Interesting.By the way , the best part of Avatar at my local Imax theater was not the big screen or the 3d--it was the awesome sound system .
Maybe theaters should work on having a nice 2d image ( as opposed to dim/murky grainy film technology of 30 years ago ) and decent surround sound before worrying about 3d.And there is no way I 'm missing Toy Story 3 , even if it IS in 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So "scam" is now the equivalent business concept of "striking while the iron is hot".
Interesting.By the way, the best part of Avatar at my local Imax theater was not the big screen or the 3d--it was the awesome sound system.
Maybe theaters should work on having a nice 2d image (as opposed to dim/murky grainy film technology of 30 years ago) and decent surround sound before worrying about 3d.And there is no way I'm missing Toy Story 3, even if it IS in 3D.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513608</id>
	<title>Re:New tech</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1268857260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; 3D isn't inherently bad, but it's still in the gimmick phase.</p><p>It was in a gimmick phase in its original heyday in the 50s, it was a gimmick again during its brief revival in the early 80s (Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone, Friday the 13th Part 3, Jaws 3D), and its a gimmick now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; 3D is n't inherently bad , but it 's still in the gimmick phase.It was in a gimmick phase in its original heyday in the 50s , it was a gimmick again during its brief revival in the early 80s ( Spacehunter : Adventures in the Forbidden Zone , Friday the 13th Part 3 , Jaws 3D ) , and its a gimmick now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; 3D isn't inherently bad, but it's still in the gimmick phase.It was in a gimmick phase in its original heyday in the 50s, it was a gimmick again during its brief revival in the early 80s (Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone, Friday the 13th Part 3, Jaws 3D), and its a gimmick now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456</id>
	<title>The hidden perk of 3D...</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1268853540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People might think 3D sucks or isn't ready, but if anything gets movies to be shot with two cameras then I hugely support it. While I agree that today, right now, we lack the technology to display 3D well, we might have that technology soon and if we haven't shot our stuff correctly we won't be able to enjoy it that way.</p><p>Plus we might get digital media that allows us to "look around" during a live movie. Can you imagine watching Lord of The Rings about being able to turn your head to get an entirely new perspective of what is going on? Plus the cameras can be stitched together to get EVEN HIGHER resolution than HD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People might think 3D sucks or is n't ready , but if anything gets movies to be shot with two cameras then I hugely support it .
While I agree that today , right now , we lack the technology to display 3D well , we might have that technology soon and if we have n't shot our stuff correctly we wo n't be able to enjoy it that way.Plus we might get digital media that allows us to " look around " during a live movie .
Can you imagine watching Lord of The Rings about being able to turn your head to get an entirely new perspective of what is going on ?
Plus the cameras can be stitched together to get EVEN HIGHER resolution than HD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People might think 3D sucks or isn't ready, but if anything gets movies to be shot with two cameras then I hugely support it.
While I agree that today, right now, we lack the technology to display 3D well, we might have that technology soon and if we haven't shot our stuff correctly we won't be able to enjoy it that way.Plus we might get digital media that allows us to "look around" during a live movie.
Can you imagine watching Lord of The Rings about being able to turn your head to get an entirely new perspective of what is going on?
Plus the cameras can be stitched together to get EVEN HIGHER resolution than HD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513688</id>
	<title>Re:but 3D home theater is next.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268857560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They shouldn't be marketing tradition and atmosphere. They should research the following two words: Alamo Drafthouse</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should n't be marketing tradition and atmosphere .
They should research the following two words : Alamo Drafthouse</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They shouldn't be marketing tradition and atmosphere.
They should research the following two words: Alamo Drafthouse</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512298</id>
	<title>3D is stupid anyway</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1268853120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing wrong with 2D. Our brain fills in the depth. Been doing it for eons with other types of pictures.<br><br>There is an entire art of photographic/cinematographic composition that relates to how lines, shapes and form relate to the frame. What does that mean where the 'frame' is all fucked up on the edges from the lameass "3D" effect? Better just put everything in the middle. OOh, that shark looked like he was coming right at me!!!1111<br><br>What people really want is honest-to-god VR. The full immersion kind with goggles with eye-tracking and head tracking, soundstage-shifting binaural sound. Come up with something like that and I'll take interest, but the 3D fad is just stupid, stop it please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing wrong with 2D .
Our brain fills in the depth .
Been doing it for eons with other types of pictures.There is an entire art of photographic/cinematographic composition that relates to how lines , shapes and form relate to the frame .
What does that mean where the 'frame ' is all fucked up on the edges from the lameass " 3D " effect ?
Better just put everything in the middle .
OOh , that shark looked like he was coming right at me ! !
! 1111What people really want is honest-to-god VR .
The full immersion kind with goggles with eye-tracking and head tracking , soundstage-shifting binaural sound .
Come up with something like that and I 'll take interest , but the 3D fad is just stupid , stop it please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing wrong with 2D.
Our brain fills in the depth.
Been doing it for eons with other types of pictures.There is an entire art of photographic/cinematographic composition that relates to how lines, shapes and form relate to the frame.
What does that mean where the 'frame' is all fucked up on the edges from the lameass "3D" effect?
Better just put everything in the middle.
OOh, that shark looked like he was coming right at me!!
!1111What people really want is honest-to-god VR.
The full immersion kind with goggles with eye-tracking and head tracking, soundstage-shifting binaural sound.
Come up with something like that and I'll take interest, but the 3D fad is just stupid, stop it please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512836</id>
	<title>It's early in the industry, consistency will come.</title>
	<author>PhantomHarlock</author>
	<datestamp>1268854620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A former vfx animator here and cinema fan.   I watched the three hour spectacle that is avatar in RealD with the circular polarized glasses and came away with no ill effects.  The  brightness was adequate, the new glasses let through more light than the old horizontally polarized glasses, if I remember the older IMAX experience correctly.   I also thought the 3D in alice was fine, they did not go with the temptation to put the Cheshire Cat in the forward plane, which they could have because he is a floating entity that can be shown off without touching the sides of the screen, like the bird critter from Captain EO that made you cross-eyed.  (with the re-release coming up you can do go to Disneyland and see what I am talking about)</p><p>I do agree that 2D -&gt; 3D conversions of older films are the equivalent of colorizing a black and white film ted turner style, it shouldn't be done out of respect for the original film.  But the industry will always exploit their properties as much as they can.  If you don't like it, don't watch it.   And I also agree that movies intended for stereo showings should be shot with two lenses, not converted later.   Both processes bring up multiple difficulties in post production, in different ways.  With true stereo shooting you can't fake nearly as much stuff, you have to map it in 3D space rather than faking comps in 2D post.    With fake 3D you can do  more VFX compositing in 2D, but then a thousand monkeys will spend a thousand hours rotoing into 3D.</p><p>Last year at NAB I saw some incredible demos of 30"  - 50" polarized plasma sets.   Every other horizontal line was polarized opposite, and with 1080 lines there was not an appreciable degradation of resolution per eye and it looked amazing.   The brightness was there too since LCDs and plasmas can put out a lot of light.  The first models were selling for $10,000 etc. but the price will come way down as they figure out how to manufacture it more inexpensively.  As a long time fan of stereo imaging, I am looking forward to the new stereo blu ray format.   It uses the same RealD circularly polarized glasses.  In fact I used the RealD glasses I got from the RealD demo theater earlier in the day.  The RealD theaters are powered by the Sony CineAlta 4K projectors...really nice stuff and affordable compared to what digital projection used to cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A former vfx animator here and cinema fan .
I watched the three hour spectacle that is avatar in RealD with the circular polarized glasses and came away with no ill effects .
The brightness was adequate , the new glasses let through more light than the old horizontally polarized glasses , if I remember the older IMAX experience correctly .
I also thought the 3D in alice was fine , they did not go with the temptation to put the Cheshire Cat in the forward plane , which they could have because he is a floating entity that can be shown off without touching the sides of the screen , like the bird critter from Captain EO that made you cross-eyed .
( with the re-release coming up you can do go to Disneyland and see what I am talking about ) I do agree that 2D - &gt; 3D conversions of older films are the equivalent of colorizing a black and white film ted turner style , it should n't be done out of respect for the original film .
But the industry will always exploit their properties as much as they can .
If you do n't like it , do n't watch it .
And I also agree that movies intended for stereo showings should be shot with two lenses , not converted later .
Both processes bring up multiple difficulties in post production , in different ways .
With true stereo shooting you ca n't fake nearly as much stuff , you have to map it in 3D space rather than faking comps in 2D post .
With fake 3D you can do more VFX compositing in 2D , but then a thousand monkeys will spend a thousand hours rotoing into 3D.Last year at NAB I saw some incredible demos of 30 " - 50 " polarized plasma sets .
Every other horizontal line was polarized opposite , and with 1080 lines there was not an appreciable degradation of resolution per eye and it looked amazing .
The brightness was there too since LCDs and plasmas can put out a lot of light .
The first models were selling for $ 10,000 etc .
but the price will come way down as they figure out how to manufacture it more inexpensively .
As a long time fan of stereo imaging , I am looking forward to the new stereo blu ray format .
It uses the same RealD circularly polarized glasses .
In fact I used the RealD glasses I got from the RealD demo theater earlier in the day .
The RealD theaters are powered by the Sony CineAlta 4K projectors...really nice stuff and affordable compared to what digital projection used to cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A former vfx animator here and cinema fan.
I watched the three hour spectacle that is avatar in RealD with the circular polarized glasses and came away with no ill effects.
The  brightness was adequate, the new glasses let through more light than the old horizontally polarized glasses, if I remember the older IMAX experience correctly.
I also thought the 3D in alice was fine, they did not go with the temptation to put the Cheshire Cat in the forward plane, which they could have because he is a floating entity that can be shown off without touching the sides of the screen, like the bird critter from Captain EO that made you cross-eyed.
(with the re-release coming up you can do go to Disneyland and see what I am talking about)I do agree that 2D -&gt; 3D conversions of older films are the equivalent of colorizing a black and white film ted turner style, it shouldn't be done out of respect for the original film.
But the industry will always exploit their properties as much as they can.
If you don't like it, don't watch it.
And I also agree that movies intended for stereo showings should be shot with two lenses, not converted later.
Both processes bring up multiple difficulties in post production, in different ways.
With true stereo shooting you can't fake nearly as much stuff, you have to map it in 3D space rather than faking comps in 2D post.
With fake 3D you can do  more VFX compositing in 2D, but then a thousand monkeys will spend a thousand hours rotoing into 3D.Last year at NAB I saw some incredible demos of 30"  - 50" polarized plasma sets.
Every other horizontal line was polarized opposite, and with 1080 lines there was not an appreciable degradation of resolution per eye and it looked amazing.
The brightness was there too since LCDs and plasmas can put out a lot of light.
The first models were selling for $10,000 etc.
but the price will come way down as they figure out how to manufacture it more inexpensively.
As a long time fan of stereo imaging, I am looking forward to the new stereo blu ray format.
It uses the same RealD circularly polarized glasses.
In fact I used the RealD glasses I got from the RealD demo theater earlier in the day.
The RealD theaters are powered by the Sony CineAlta 4K projectors...really nice stuff and affordable compared to what digital projection used to cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515736</id>
	<title>I can't experience 3d</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268822220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of my eyes has very weak vision, so much so that I only developed peripheral vision in that eye. My brain does not process image from that eye properly, sometimes not at all.  This renders me "immune" I suppose to the trick used to simulate 3d images. So 3d is worthless fad for me, I would not even go see a move that was only available in 3d.</p><p>Despite this I have good depth perception. I guess it's good humans use more than one way of perceiving depth of objects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my eyes has very weak vision , so much so that I only developed peripheral vision in that eye .
My brain does not process image from that eye properly , sometimes not at all .
This renders me " immune " I suppose to the trick used to simulate 3d images .
So 3d is worthless fad for me , I would not even go see a move that was only available in 3d.Despite this I have good depth perception .
I guess it 's good humans use more than one way of perceiving depth of objects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my eyes has very weak vision, so much so that I only developed peripheral vision in that eye.
My brain does not process image from that eye properly, sometimes not at all.
This renders me "immune" I suppose to the trick used to simulate 3d images.
So 3d is worthless fad for me, I would not even go see a move that was only available in 3d.Despite this I have good depth perception.
I guess it's good humans use more than one way of perceiving depth of objects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512730</id>
	<title>Depends on Which 3D Tech...</title>
	<author>Kozar\_The\_Malignant</author>
	<datestamp>1268854260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are three main 3D formats out there, IMAX 3D, RealD, and Dolby 3D.  IMAX 3D uses linear polarization, RealD uses circular polarization, and Dolby 3D uses the Red/Blue color separation.  In the first two, the glasses appear light gray, while the last has obviously colored lenses. I saw <i>Avatar</i> in the first two and <i>Alice</i> in the third.  </p><p>My personal preference is for the polarized techniques.  The IMAX was definitely the most immersive.  The Dolby 3D seemed too dark and sometimes lighting made me aware of reflections on the inside of the lenses.  Additionally, in the Dolby 3D, some of the colors, particularly greens, just seemed off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are three main 3D formats out there , IMAX 3D , RealD , and Dolby 3D .
IMAX 3D uses linear polarization , RealD uses circular polarization , and Dolby 3D uses the Red/Blue color separation .
In the first two , the glasses appear light gray , while the last has obviously colored lenses .
I saw Avatar in the first two and Alice in the third .
My personal preference is for the polarized techniques .
The IMAX was definitely the most immersive .
The Dolby 3D seemed too dark and sometimes lighting made me aware of reflections on the inside of the lenses .
Additionally , in the Dolby 3D , some of the colors , particularly greens , just seemed off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are three main 3D formats out there, IMAX 3D, RealD, and Dolby 3D.
IMAX 3D uses linear polarization, RealD uses circular polarization, and Dolby 3D uses the Red/Blue color separation.
In the first two, the glasses appear light gray, while the last has obviously colored lenses.
I saw Avatar in the first two and Alice in the third.
My personal preference is for the polarized techniques.
The IMAX was definitely the most immersive.
The Dolby 3D seemed too dark and sometimes lighting made me aware of reflections on the inside of the lenses.
Additionally, in the Dolby 3D, some of the colors, particularly greens, just seemed off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517856</id>
	<title>3D is uselsss to a large segment of the population</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1268835600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a mild vision impairment and can't properly view 3D but I can view 2D movies just fine.<br>I am likely not the only one with such problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a mild vision impairment and ca n't properly view 3D but I can view 2D movies just fine.I am likely not the only one with such problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a mild vision impairment and can't properly view 3D but I can view 2D movies just fine.I am likely not the only one with such problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514084</id>
	<title>And the problem is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268859120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what's the problem?  </p><p>1. Scam today</p><p>2. Profits later today and into early next week.</p><p>3. Fallout from the scam late next week, an outing by some nosy profit-hating group or other, groupies from the group going to rage against the films (and more profit).</p><p>4. A new scam in a few more weeks, people going to regular films (profit), decrying 'whatever happened to that 3d glasses fad blah blah'.</p><p>5. storage of the scam.  Lock it up for 15 years, then roll it back out: Look!  3D in SSSensuroundDDD... profit...<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...any questions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what 's the problem ?
1. Scam today2 .
Profits later today and into early next week.3 .
Fallout from the scam late next week , an outing by some nosy profit-hating group or other , groupies from the group going to rage against the films ( and more profit ) .4 .
A new scam in a few more weeks , people going to regular films ( profit ) , decrying 'whatever happened to that 3d glasses fad blah blah'.5 .
storage of the scam .
Lock it up for 15 years , then roll it back out : Look !
3D in SSSensuroundDDD... profit... ...any questions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what's the problem?
1. Scam today2.
Profits later today and into early next week.3.
Fallout from the scam late next week, an outing by some nosy profit-hating group or other, groupies from the group going to rage against the films (and more profit).4.
A new scam in a few more weeks, people going to regular films (profit), decrying 'whatever happened to that 3d glasses fad blah blah'.5.
storage of the scam.
Lock it up for 15 years, then roll it back out: Look!
3D in SSSensuroundDDD... profit... ...any questions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513298</id>
	<title>Re:Perish the thought?</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1268856240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow you went to a scumbag theater.    avatar was the same price as other films around here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow you went to a scumbag theater .
avatar was the same price as other films around here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow you went to a scumbag theater.
avatar was the same price as other films around here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512754</id>
	<title>Already being done, but not by hollywood</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1268854320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw<br><br>I have no idea why movies; games are going after lameass 3D and ignoring head-tracking. They also ignore binaural sound as if it wasn't the fucking coolest thing in the universe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Jd3-eiid-UwI have no idea why movies ; games are going after lameass 3D and ignoring head-tracking .
They also ignore binaural sound as if it was n't the fucking coolest thing in the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-UwI have no idea why movies; games are going after lameass 3D and ignoring head-tracking.
They also ignore binaural sound as if it wasn't the fucking coolest thing in the universe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517154</id>
	<title>Subtitles</title>
	<author>nbates</author>
	<datestamp>1268830080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An example of how bad was Alice 3D in comparison with Avatar 3D are subtitles.</p><p>In Avatar 3D, subtitles were placed were the action was happening. So if you were watching somebody talking, you just moved your eyes a little and read the subtitles.</p><p>On the other hand, Alice has the subtitles in the regular place, at the bottom of the screen. This would be ok in a 2d movie, but in 3d there is another problem and that's that you have to refocus each time you want to read. So the result is very annoying, focusing back and forth from the scene to the subtitles.</p><p>Of course there's also the problem of the movie being too dark. And too boring<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An example of how bad was Alice 3D in comparison with Avatar 3D are subtitles.In Avatar 3D , subtitles were placed were the action was happening .
So if you were watching somebody talking , you just moved your eyes a little and read the subtitles.On the other hand , Alice has the subtitles in the regular place , at the bottom of the screen .
This would be ok in a 2d movie , but in 3d there is another problem and that 's that you have to refocus each time you want to read .
So the result is very annoying , focusing back and forth from the scene to the subtitles.Of course there 's also the problem of the movie being too dark .
And too boring : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An example of how bad was Alice 3D in comparison with Avatar 3D are subtitles.In Avatar 3D, subtitles were placed were the action was happening.
So if you were watching somebody talking, you just moved your eyes a little and read the subtitles.On the other hand, Alice has the subtitles in the regular place, at the bottom of the screen.
This would be ok in a 2d movie, but in 3d there is another problem and that's that you have to refocus each time you want to read.
So the result is very annoying, focusing back and forth from the scene to the subtitles.Of course there's also the problem of the movie being too dark.
And too boring :D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514390</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1268817120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
That's only because of you banging your head against the seat back in front at every really, really stupid plot element.  If you wear a padded cap, or watch a movie that actually makes sense in addition to looking really great in 3D, you shouldn't have that problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's only because of you banging your head against the seat back in front at every really , really stupid plot element .
If you wear a padded cap , or watch a movie that actually makes sense in addition to looking really great in 3D , you should n't have that problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
That's only because of you banging your head against the seat back in front at every really, really stupid plot element.
If you wear a padded cap, or watch a movie that actually makes sense in addition to looking really great in 3D, you shouldn't have that problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518228</id>
	<title>Re:Binocular Impaired</title>
	<author>scourfish</author>
	<datestamp>1268838720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amblyopia can have it's benefits.  I have amblyopia, so when I saw [blue smurf cartoon], I saw it in 2D and as a result, the 2d viewing was empty opening night so I didn't have to put up with people, and I didn't vomit all over the theater exit like everybody else did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amblyopia can have it 's benefits .
I have amblyopia , so when I saw [ blue smurf cartoon ] , I saw it in 2D and as a result , the 2d viewing was empty opening night so I did n't have to put up with people , and I did n't vomit all over the theater exit like everybody else did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amblyopia can have it's benefits.
I have amblyopia, so when I saw [blue smurf cartoon], I saw it in 2D and as a result, the 2d viewing was empty opening night so I didn't have to put up with people, and I didn't vomit all over the theater exit like everybody else did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516850</id>
	<title>Keep doing that and you'll go blind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268827860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2813511.htm" title="abc.net.au" rel="nofollow">3D is bad for your eyes.</a> [abc.net.au]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D is bad for your eyes .
[ abc.net.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D is bad for your eyes.
[abc.net.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513450</id>
	<title>Re:Perish the thought?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268856720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if the movie is in Shocking 2D!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the movie is in Shocking 2D !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the movie is in Shocking 2D!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31523310</id>
	<title>Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1268929560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have two eyes, but slight astigmatism, and Avatar 3D didn't work for me.  Tried those Real3D glasses over my normal glasses, tried them without my normal glasses...  The close up objects with "obvious" 3D just looked bad.  Objects further away still not great.  The only parts that really looked good were the holograms which are supposed to seem fake.</p><p>And I hated the effect of blurring objects you're not supposed to be focusing on.</p><p>I think I'll stick to plain old 2D from now on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have two eyes , but slight astigmatism , and Avatar 3D did n't work for me .
Tried those Real3D glasses over my normal glasses , tried them without my normal glasses... The close up objects with " obvious " 3D just looked bad .
Objects further away still not great .
The only parts that really looked good were the holograms which are supposed to seem fake.And I hated the effect of blurring objects you 're not supposed to be focusing on.I think I 'll stick to plain old 2D from now on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have two eyes, but slight astigmatism, and Avatar 3D didn't work for me.
Tried those Real3D glasses over my normal glasses, tried them without my normal glasses...  The close up objects with "obvious" 3D just looked bad.
Objects further away still not great.
The only parts that really looked good were the holograms which are supposed to seem fake.And I hated the effect of blurring objects you're not supposed to be focusing on.I think I'll stick to plain old 2D from now on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514012</id>
	<title>Re:I am an audience member.</title>
	<author>ET3D</author>
	<datestamp>1268858880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. I don't think it's a scam. It's just a way to give a little extra to the experience. It's like saying that the iPhone is a scam because it costs more than a basic phone and doesn't have full multitasking. Or whatever other silly statement of this type. Not everything fits everyone, but I'm sure a lot of people do enjoy the experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I do n't think it 's a scam .
It 's just a way to give a little extra to the experience .
It 's like saying that the iPhone is a scam because it costs more than a basic phone and does n't have full multitasking .
Or whatever other silly statement of this type .
Not everything fits everyone , but I 'm sure a lot of people do enjoy the experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I don't think it's a scam.
It's just a way to give a little extra to the experience.
It's like saying that the iPhone is a scam because it costs more than a basic phone and doesn't have full multitasking.
Or whatever other silly statement of this type.
Not everything fits everyone, but I'm sure a lot of people do enjoy the experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513886</id>
	<title>Misplaced priorities</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1268858340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't they focus on producing porn in 3D first? Here's the money shot -- comin' right at ya!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't they focus on producing porn in 3D first ?
Here 's the money shot -- comin ' right at ya !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't they focus on producing porn in 3D first?
Here's the money shot -- comin' right at ya!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514944</id>
	<title>Re:The glasses suck terribly</title>
	<author>Pebby</author>
	<datestamp>1268819160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish I could just pay less money to see the 2D version. My problem is that my favorite, local, single-screen theater is now only showing the 3D versions of films. I have to go to crummier theaters if I want to avoid headache.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I could just pay less money to see the 2D version .
My problem is that my favorite , local , single-screen theater is now only showing the 3D versions of films .
I have to go to crummier theaters if I want to avoid headache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I could just pay less money to see the 2D version.
My problem is that my favorite, local, single-screen theater is now only showing the 3D versions of films.
I have to go to crummier theaters if I want to avoid headache.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512602</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Yes</title>
	<author>Chad Birch</author>
	<datestamp>1268853900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know which theaters you guys are going to, to think that they're dying. Every theater I've been to on a Friday or Saturday evening recently has been absolutely jammed, you can hardly walk through the lobby.<br>
<br>
Reminds me of that old Yogi Berra quote: "Nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded."</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know which theaters you guys are going to , to think that they 're dying .
Every theater I 've been to on a Friday or Saturday evening recently has been absolutely jammed , you can hardly walk through the lobby .
Reminds me of that old Yogi Berra quote : " Nobody goes there any more , it 's too crowded .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know which theaters you guys are going to, to think that they're dying.
Every theater I've been to on a Friday or Saturday evening recently has been absolutely jammed, you can hardly walk through the lobby.
Reminds me of that old Yogi Berra quote: "Nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31521948</id>
	<title>Alice was 2D-to-3D? Yet better 3D than avatar!</title>
	<author>Barryke</author>
	<datestamp>1268923080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw both (Avatar &amp; Alice) in 3D and Alice had the best 3D effects.<br>I'm surprised to read here was filmed in 2D as i would never guess.</p><p>On a side note i saw Alice in IMAX 3d and saw Avatar with xpand glasses. I found IMAX 3D more pleasing.</p><p>What bothered me in Avatar was that depth layers were visible in long objects along the z axis.<br>The Alice movie didn't have such thing, and everything was smooth along the z axis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw both ( Avatar &amp; Alice ) in 3D and Alice had the best 3D effects.I 'm surprised to read here was filmed in 2D as i would never guess.On a side note i saw Alice in IMAX 3d and saw Avatar with xpand glasses .
I found IMAX 3D more pleasing.What bothered me in Avatar was that depth layers were visible in long objects along the z axis.The Alice movie did n't have such thing , and everything was smooth along the z axis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw both (Avatar &amp; Alice) in 3D and Alice had the best 3D effects.I'm surprised to read here was filmed in 2D as i would never guess.On a side note i saw Alice in IMAX 3d and saw Avatar with xpand glasses.
I found IMAX 3D more pleasing.What bothered me in Avatar was that depth layers were visible in long objects along the z axis.The Alice movie didn't have such thing, and everything was smooth along the z axis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514806</id>
	<title>Re:Where 3D works</title>
	<author>Judinous</author>
	<datestamp>1268818560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually just bought a 60-inch 3D ready HDTV on sale from Dell for $900, which should be delivered tomorrow.  I have no intention of watching 3D movies on it for the time being, but the price for a home theater that is capable of doing so is already pretty reasonable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually just bought a 60-inch 3D ready HDTV on sale from Dell for $ 900 , which should be delivered tomorrow .
I have no intention of watching 3D movies on it for the time being , but the price for a home theater that is capable of doing so is already pretty reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually just bought a 60-inch 3D ready HDTV on sale from Dell for $900, which should be delivered tomorrow.
I have no intention of watching 3D movies on it for the time being, but the price for a home theater that is capable of doing so is already pretty reasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516354</id>
	<title>Re:Do what I did for my daughter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268824980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>McGyver? Is that you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>McGyver ?
Is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McGyver?
Is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514710</id>
	<title>Re:Alice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268818200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who would pirate a movie if they could get a DVD for under $5? What is the cost of producing the DVD? Under a $1? How much profit is enough? Why is the IP industry so special that we need to protect the profit margin?</p><p>Reasons why I pirate: I have 2 DVD players which no longer play Disney DVD's. "Real" DVD's play without a problem.  Error encumbered junk fails. The movie is not worth the purchase and I can't find a rental.  A good movie is not available for purchase because it was pulled or no longer distributed. Unlike a book, It's temporary and the technology will be unsupported in the future (DMCA, ACTA, it's where we are headed). I already own the DVD and it no longer plays. I am only paid ONCE for the work I do even though it is creative in nature and can and will be reused continuously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would pirate a movie if they could get a DVD for under $ 5 ?
What is the cost of producing the DVD ?
Under a $ 1 ?
How much profit is enough ?
Why is the IP industry so special that we need to protect the profit margin ? Reasons why I pirate : I have 2 DVD players which no longer play Disney DVD 's .
" Real " DVD 's play without a problem .
Error encumbered junk fails .
The movie is not worth the purchase and I ca n't find a rental .
A good movie is not available for purchase because it was pulled or no longer distributed .
Unlike a book , It 's temporary and the technology will be unsupported in the future ( DMCA , ACTA , it 's where we are headed ) .
I already own the DVD and it no longer plays .
I am only paid ONCE for the work I do even though it is creative in nature and can and will be reused continuously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would pirate a movie if they could get a DVD for under $5?
What is the cost of producing the DVD?
Under a $1?
How much profit is enough?
Why is the IP industry so special that we need to protect the profit margin?Reasons why I pirate: I have 2 DVD players which no longer play Disney DVD's.
"Real" DVD's play without a problem.
Error encumbered junk fails.
The movie is not worth the purchase and I can't find a rental.
A good movie is not available for purchase because it was pulled or no longer distributed.
Unlike a book, It's temporary and the technology will be unsupported in the future (DMCA, ACTA, it's where we are headed).
I already own the DVD and it no longer plays.
I am only paid ONCE for the work I do even though it is creative in nature and can and will be reused continuously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512702</id>
	<title>Re:Bad? What about it was bad?</title>
	<author>b0bby</author>
	<datestamp>1268854200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree with the summary; I thought that Avatar's 3D was well done and unobtrusive, but I saw Alice in Wonderland this weekend &amp; the 3D was really annoying to me. It's hard to describe but it seems like moving objects in the foreground get kind of transparent. I had noticed it during the 3D ad before Avatar, and it made me think that Avatar would be the same, but since Avatar was ok I figured maybe they'd just overdone it a bit for the trailer. I liked Alice, but I was wishing I was in the 2D version for most of the movie. The rest of my family, however, had no complaints, so I'm probably just weird.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree with the summary ; I thought that Avatar 's 3D was well done and unobtrusive , but I saw Alice in Wonderland this weekend &amp; the 3D was really annoying to me .
It 's hard to describe but it seems like moving objects in the foreground get kind of transparent .
I had noticed it during the 3D ad before Avatar , and it made me think that Avatar would be the same , but since Avatar was ok I figured maybe they 'd just overdone it a bit for the trailer .
I liked Alice , but I was wishing I was in the 2D version for most of the movie .
The rest of my family , however , had no complaints , so I 'm probably just weird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree with the summary; I thought that Avatar's 3D was well done and unobtrusive, but I saw Alice in Wonderland this weekend &amp; the 3D was really annoying to me.
It's hard to describe but it seems like moving objects in the foreground get kind of transparent.
I had noticed it during the 3D ad before Avatar, and it made me think that Avatar would be the same, but since Avatar was ok I figured maybe they'd just overdone it a bit for the trailer.
I liked Alice, but I was wishing I was in the 2D version for most of the movie.
The rest of my family, however, had no complaints, so I'm probably just weird.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514228</id>
	<title>Not Surprised, Scamming Blu Ray for years.</title>
	<author>Mybrid</author>
	<datestamp>1268816460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a lot of Blu Ray and for sure can tell you that at least half of all "1080p" content is nothing more than the movie studioes upscaling standard DVD, SD,  printing it to Blu Ray and selling it for $30 as HD. A total rip off.</p><p>Especially with Blu Ray TV box sets. The HD broadcast is way better than the quality on disk.</p><p>So there is no surprise they are doing the same thing with 3D.</p><p>My Sony PS3 upscales better than the scammed Blu Ray disks. A lot of Blu Ray is pixelated and blurry.</p><p>You'd think that if Hollywood were going to scam consumers they would use a better upscale converter than they are.<br>Heck, use a PS3. Blu Ray is a joke except when the content really is 1080p.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a lot of Blu Ray and for sure can tell you that at least half of all " 1080p " content is nothing more than the movie studioes upscaling standard DVD , SD , printing it to Blu Ray and selling it for $ 30 as HD .
A total rip off.Especially with Blu Ray TV box sets .
The HD broadcast is way better than the quality on disk.So there is no surprise they are doing the same thing with 3D.My Sony PS3 upscales better than the scammed Blu Ray disks .
A lot of Blu Ray is pixelated and blurry.You 'd think that if Hollywood were going to scam consumers they would use a better upscale converter than they are.Heck , use a PS3 .
Blu Ray is a joke except when the content really is 1080p .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a lot of Blu Ray and for sure can tell you that at least half of all "1080p" content is nothing more than the movie studioes upscaling standard DVD, SD,  printing it to Blu Ray and selling it for $30 as HD.
A total rip off.Especially with Blu Ray TV box sets.
The HD broadcast is way better than the quality on disk.So there is no surprise they are doing the same thing with 3D.My Sony PS3 upscales better than the scammed Blu Ray disks.
A lot of Blu Ray is pixelated and blurry.You'd think that if Hollywood were going to scam consumers they would use a better upscale converter than they are.Heck, use a PS3.
Blu Ray is a joke except when the content really is 1080p.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518448</id>
	<title>Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers</title>
	<author>CaseyB</author>
	<datestamp>1268840940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got two eyes, but one is sufficiently weak that my brain never learned stereoscopic vision. 3D movies for me amount to having to wear uncomfortable dorky glasses.</p><p>Oh, and also watching an image that is half as bright as a normal movie. Was that normal, or the result of my seeing the movie in a lousy theater? Is this just an acknowledged drawback to the technology, or are they supposed to be projecting at double the brightness to compensate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got two eyes , but one is sufficiently weak that my brain never learned stereoscopic vision .
3D movies for me amount to having to wear uncomfortable dorky glasses.Oh , and also watching an image that is half as bright as a normal movie .
Was that normal , or the result of my seeing the movie in a lousy theater ?
Is this just an acknowledged drawback to the technology , or are they supposed to be projecting at double the brightness to compensate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got two eyes, but one is sufficiently weak that my brain never learned stereoscopic vision.
3D movies for me amount to having to wear uncomfortable dorky glasses.Oh, and also watching an image that is half as bright as a normal movie.
Was that normal, or the result of my seeing the movie in a lousy theater?
Is this just an acknowledged drawback to the technology, or are they supposed to be projecting at double the brightness to compensate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>lolocaust</author>
	<datestamp>1268853180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen Avatar twice (both times were because someone else wanted me to accompany them when they went to see it). Once in a regular theatre, and the second time in an Imax theatre.<br>
<br>
I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side, there would be ghosting. The cheapo cinema used circular polarization, which was more comfortable and caused me no eye strain at all. Perhaps something similar happened to you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen Avatar twice ( both times were because someone else wanted me to accompany them when they went to see it ) .
Once in a regular theatre , and the second time in an Imax theatre .
I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side , there would be ghosting .
The cheapo cinema used circular polarization , which was more comfortable and caused me no eye strain at all .
Perhaps something similar happened to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen Avatar twice (both times were because someone else wanted me to accompany them when they went to see it).
Once in a regular theatre, and the second time in an Imax theatre.
I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side, there would be ghosting.
The cheapo cinema used circular polarization, which was more comfortable and caused me no eye strain at all.
Perhaps something similar happened to you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517122</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on Which 3D Tech...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268829840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What most people fail to understand is that regardless of the technique, 3D based on two images will always be more or less disturbing to watch because it breaks a number of assumptions that our brains do when we watch the real word. On is that the vergence angle between the eyes depends on the distance to an object. This does not work for 3D-movies since the actual distance depends on where in the theatre you are sitting. Another problem is that our eyes try to focus on the perceived depth of whatever we are looking at when we should focus at the screen at all times when watching movies. After many years working on 3D-visualization, my eyes still don't do the right thing all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What most people fail to understand is that regardless of the technique , 3D based on two images will always be more or less disturbing to watch because it breaks a number of assumptions that our brains do when we watch the real word .
On is that the vergence angle between the eyes depends on the distance to an object .
This does not work for 3D-movies since the actual distance depends on where in the theatre you are sitting .
Another problem is that our eyes try to focus on the perceived depth of whatever we are looking at when we should focus at the screen at all times when watching movies .
After many years working on 3D-visualization , my eyes still do n't do the right thing all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What most people fail to understand is that regardless of the technique, 3D based on two images will always be more or less disturbing to watch because it breaks a number of assumptions that our brains do when we watch the real word.
On is that the vergence angle between the eyes depends on the distance to an object.
This does not work for 3D-movies since the actual distance depends on where in the theatre you are sitting.
Another problem is that our eyes try to focus on the perceived depth of whatever we are looking at when we should focus at the screen at all times when watching movies.
After many years working on 3D-visualization, my eyes still don't do the right thing all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172</id>
	<title>Avatar pains</title>
	<author>Trent Hawkins</author>
	<datestamp>1268852760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about anyone else but I've seen a lot of 3d movies before, but Avatar gave me a splitting headache at the end of it. I don't know quite what it is about it, but watching it was painful (not being sarcastic BTW.).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about anyone else but I 've seen a lot of 3d movies before , but Avatar gave me a splitting headache at the end of it .
I do n't know quite what it is about it , but watching it was painful ( not being sarcastic BTW .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about anyone else but I've seen a lot of 3d movies before, but Avatar gave me a splitting headache at the end of it.
I don't know quite what it is about it, but watching it was painful (not being sarcastic BTW.
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515610</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>Aidtopia</author>
	<datestamp>1268821620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Actually, IMAX 3D uses circular polarization.</p></div></blockquote><p>Perhaps it depends on the theatre.  I saw Avatar in 3D in a traditional IMAX theatre (not IMAX digital), and they were definitely using linear polarization--the glasses were compatible with my own linearly-polarized 3D glasses.  I have seen other 3D movies in that same IMAX theatre that used LCD shutter glasses, so it wouldn't surprise me if they also show some 3D movies using circular polarization.</p><p>All of the 3D movies I've seen in commercial theatres with digital projection have used circular polarization.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , IMAX 3D uses circular polarization.Perhaps it depends on the theatre .
I saw Avatar in 3D in a traditional IMAX theatre ( not IMAX digital ) , and they were definitely using linear polarization--the glasses were compatible with my own linearly-polarized 3D glasses .
I have seen other 3D movies in that same IMAX theatre that used LCD shutter glasses , so it would n't surprise me if they also show some 3D movies using circular polarization.All of the 3D movies I 've seen in commercial theatres with digital projection have used circular polarization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, IMAX 3D uses circular polarization.Perhaps it depends on the theatre.
I saw Avatar in 3D in a traditional IMAX theatre (not IMAX digital), and they were definitely using linear polarization--the glasses were compatible with my own linearly-polarized 3D glasses.
I have seen other 3D movies in that same IMAX theatre that used LCD shutter glasses, so it wouldn't surprise me if they also show some 3D movies using circular polarization.All of the 3D movies I've seen in commercial theatres with digital projection have used circular polarization.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513026</id>
	<title>Avatar was teh sh@t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268855280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>im anti patent, anti copyright, anti big media, and all it goes with it. im pro unbounded filesharing, free copying too, thanks to the route the media cartels and their government puppets taken in the last few years.</p><p>i dont see the point of seeing movies in a movie theater. my home is cozier, more convenient, and it doesnt matter much if i see most movies in cinema screen or a big screen tv.</p><p>but still, if movies made for big screen are made like avatar, i wont hesitate from shelling $20 a pop to see them. it was worth every single cent i spent on it, and in my country exchange rate is 1.5 to 1. so basically in usa standards i spent $30 or so on it. i dont regret it.</p><p>i dont see the point in pirating it either. i also plan on seeing it again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>im anti patent , anti copyright , anti big media , and all it goes with it .
im pro unbounded filesharing , free copying too , thanks to the route the media cartels and their government puppets taken in the last few years.i dont see the point of seeing movies in a movie theater .
my home is cozier , more convenient , and it doesnt matter much if i see most movies in cinema screen or a big screen tv.but still , if movies made for big screen are made like avatar , i wont hesitate from shelling $ 20 a pop to see them .
it was worth every single cent i spent on it , and in my country exchange rate is 1.5 to 1. so basically in usa standards i spent $ 30 or so on it .
i dont regret it.i dont see the point in pirating it either .
i also plan on seeing it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>im anti patent, anti copyright, anti big media, and all it goes with it.
im pro unbounded filesharing, free copying too, thanks to the route the media cartels and their government puppets taken in the last few years.i dont see the point of seeing movies in a movie theater.
my home is cozier, more convenient, and it doesnt matter much if i see most movies in cinema screen or a big screen tv.but still, if movies made for big screen are made like avatar, i wont hesitate from shelling $20 a pop to see them.
it was worth every single cent i spent on it, and in my country exchange rate is 1.5 to 1. so basically in usa standards i spent $30 or so on it.
i dont regret it.i dont see the point in pirating it either.
i also plan on seeing it again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513012</id>
	<title>3D Glasses Block "half the amount of light"</title>
	<author>mrbene</author>
	<datestamp>1268855220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In TFA, the author gripes that the glasses "take almost a full stop of light out of the image. That's almost half the amount of light!"

</p><p>In fact, the glasses are designed to block <i>at least</i> half the light, since they are polarized to show half the content to one eye, and half to the other.

</p><p>The author is similarly uninformed in other technical aspects, but I found this to be the most blatant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In TFA , the author gripes that the glasses " take almost a full stop of light out of the image .
That 's almost half the amount of light !
" In fact , the glasses are designed to block at least half the light , since they are polarized to show half the content to one eye , and half to the other .
The author is similarly uninformed in other technical aspects , but I found this to be the most blatant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In TFA, the author gripes that the glasses "take almost a full stop of light out of the image.
That's almost half the amount of light!
"

In fact, the glasses are designed to block at least half the light, since they are polarized to show half the content to one eye, and half to the other.
The author is similarly uninformed in other technical aspects, but I found this to be the most blatant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513174</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Yes</title>
	<author>kentrel</author>
	<datestamp>1268855760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For &pound;11.99 a month I can see as many movies as I want. www.cineworld.co.uk If I see a movie a week, thats pretty cheap. Since I don't have a sugar addiction I can just bring a bottle of water with me rather than buying a soda, and the cinema chain I go to is doing good business Whats the problem? The movie industry have adjusted their prices for people like me who love movies but want a reasonable price. Seems like no matter how hard they try, there's just some cheapskates out there that will never be happy</htmltext>
<tokenext>For   11.99 a month I can see as many movies as I want .
www.cineworld.co.uk If I see a movie a week , thats pretty cheap .
Since I do n't have a sugar addiction I can just bring a bottle of water with me rather than buying a soda , and the cinema chain I go to is doing good business Whats the problem ?
The movie industry have adjusted their prices for people like me who love movies but want a reasonable price .
Seems like no matter how hard they try , there 's just some cheapskates out there that will never be happy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For £11.99 a month I can see as many movies as I want.
www.cineworld.co.uk If I see a movie a week, thats pretty cheap.
Since I don't have a sugar addiction I can just bring a bottle of water with me rather than buying a soda, and the cinema chain I go to is doing good business Whats the problem?
The movie industry have adjusted their prices for people like me who love movies but want a reasonable price.
Seems like no matter how hard they try, there's just some cheapskates out there that will never be happy</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31521126</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268918160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are getting linear/circular polar filters wrong. Actually both exhibit this effect.<br>It really doesn't matter if they use linear or circular filters for the glasses, so it makes sense to use the cheaper linear filters.<br>I felt that IMAX really strained my eyes, but that's because it's flashing - maybe because the flashing of the 2 projectors isn't perfectly synchronized (?), not quite sure why it's worse than normal film. I didn't experience this with digital 3D - which uses DLP technology.<br>It's really disappointing that 48 fps IMAX didn't become the standard, and they use 24 fps film.</p><p>Check:<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing\_filter\_(Photography)<br>The difference is:<br>"Circular polarizers include a linear polarizer on the front, which selects one polarization of light while rejecting another, followed by a quarter-wave plate, which converts the selected polarization to circularly polarized light inside the camera, which works with all types of cameras, because mirrors and beam-splitters split circularly polarized light the same way they split unpolarized light.[2]"</p><p>-Kornel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are getting linear/circular polar filters wrong .
Actually both exhibit this effect.It really does n't matter if they use linear or circular filters for the glasses , so it makes sense to use the cheaper linear filters.I felt that IMAX really strained my eyes , but that 's because it 's flashing - maybe because the flashing of the 2 projectors is n't perfectly synchronized ( ?
) , not quite sure why it 's worse than normal film .
I did n't experience this with digital 3D - which uses DLP technology.It 's really disappointing that 48 fps IMAX did n't become the standard , and they use 24 fps film.Check : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing \ _filter \ _ ( Photography ) The difference is : " Circular polarizers include a linear polarizer on the front , which selects one polarization of light while rejecting another , followed by a quarter-wave plate , which converts the selected polarization to circularly polarized light inside the camera , which works with all types of cameras , because mirrors and beam-splitters split circularly polarized light the same way they split unpolarized light .
[ 2 ] " -Kornel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are getting linear/circular polar filters wrong.
Actually both exhibit this effect.It really doesn't matter if they use linear or circular filters for the glasses, so it makes sense to use the cheaper linear filters.I felt that IMAX really strained my eyes, but that's because it's flashing - maybe because the flashing of the 2 projectors isn't perfectly synchronized (?
), not quite sure why it's worse than normal film.
I didn't experience this with digital 3D - which uses DLP technology.It's really disappointing that 48 fps IMAX didn't become the standard, and they use 24 fps film.Check:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing\_filter\_(Photography)The difference is:"Circular polarizers include a linear polarizer on the front, which selects one polarization of light while rejecting another, followed by a quarter-wave plate, which converts the selected polarization to circularly polarized light inside the camera, which works with all types of cameras, because mirrors and beam-splitters split circularly polarized light the same way they split unpolarized light.
[2]"-Kornel</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515398</id>
	<title>another dumb article.</title>
	<author>SinShiva</author>
	<datestamp>1268820660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Technology doesn't progress unless you can show an audience why they like it.  3D tech has to start somewhere.  Looking at history, a lot of new technology started off appearing as a scam to some moderately intelligent douchebag, sold to an even less informed person.<br> <br>Is slashdot about quantity or quality, i wonder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technology does n't progress unless you can show an audience why they like it .
3D tech has to start somewhere .
Looking at history , a lot of new technology started off appearing as a scam to some moderately intelligent douchebag , sold to an even less informed person .
Is slashdot about quantity or quality , i wonder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technology doesn't progress unless you can show an audience why they like it.
3D tech has to start somewhere.
Looking at history, a lot of new technology started off appearing as a scam to some moderately intelligent douchebag, sold to an even less informed person.
Is slashdot about quantity or quality, i wonder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513686</id>
	<title>Re:Alice</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1268857560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm intrigued to know what the issues with it were.</p></div></blockquote><p>The author points out the problem in this part:</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>layers that can be separated to fake a different perspective for the second eye, but that's what it looks like, layers. So yes, you can push things away and pull things forward and enhance the depth, but the content within each layer has no depth.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>I (though I'm sure I'm not the only/first) call it the diorama effect.  You get a similar effect if you look through light-strong high power binoculars - due to the two front elements being spaced so much further apart, you get an exaggerated sense of depth.. which is great to gauge the depth given the surfaces you're watching off in the distance.. but any surfaces in between will appear flat - like cardboard cut-outs; like an elementary school diorama.</p><p>That said.. it's Alice in Wonderland... it kinda works for that.</p><p>Question is.. does it work for Clash of the Titans, or the Titanic re-release in '3D'?  Not too sure about those.</p><p>Either way, it'll either add or detract... but to say it's a 'scam'?  Nah.  Be more open about how the 3D was produced, perhaps - but those who truly care will look this up in advance.</p><p>The rest of the complaints seem to be about the 3D bandwagon in general, losing a full stop of light, all that..</p><p>Not sure why he's complaining, though... he's a CG supe; that means any CG will have to be rendered twice... it's pretty much double the work for the renderfarm, for which they can bill, and a bit more work for the artists as well (to make sure the effects 'work' in 3D).. more billable stuff.  I guess he's speaking more from a personal point of view than a business one.. but in that case his VFX qualifications carry much less weight.  *Waves to 'Alex'*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm intrigued to know what the issues with it were.The author points out the problem in this part : layers that can be separated to fake a different perspective for the second eye , but that 's what it looks like , layers .
So yes , you can push things away and pull things forward and enhance the depth , but the content within each layer has no depth .
I ( though I 'm sure I 'm not the only/first ) call it the diorama effect .
You get a similar effect if you look through light-strong high power binoculars - due to the two front elements being spaced so much further apart , you get an exaggerated sense of depth.. which is great to gauge the depth given the surfaces you 're watching off in the distance.. but any surfaces in between will appear flat - like cardboard cut-outs ; like an elementary school diorama.That said.. it 's Alice in Wonderland... it kinda works for that.Question is.. does it work for Clash of the Titans , or the Titanic re-release in '3D ' ?
Not too sure about those.Either way , it 'll either add or detract... but to say it 's a 'scam ' ?
Nah. Be more open about how the 3D was produced , perhaps - but those who truly care will look this up in advance.The rest of the complaints seem to be about the 3D bandwagon in general , losing a full stop of light , all that..Not sure why he 's complaining , though... he 's a CG supe ; that means any CG will have to be rendered twice... it 's pretty much double the work for the renderfarm , for which they can bill , and a bit more work for the artists as well ( to make sure the effects 'work ' in 3D ) .. more billable stuff .
I guess he 's speaking more from a personal point of view than a business one.. but in that case his VFX qualifications carry much less weight .
* Waves to 'Alex ' *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm intrigued to know what the issues with it were.The author points out the problem in this part: layers that can be separated to fake a different perspective for the second eye, but that's what it looks like, layers.
So yes, you can push things away and pull things forward and enhance the depth, but the content within each layer has no depth.
I (though I'm sure I'm not the only/first) call it the diorama effect.
You get a similar effect if you look through light-strong high power binoculars - due to the two front elements being spaced so much further apart, you get an exaggerated sense of depth.. which is great to gauge the depth given the surfaces you're watching off in the distance.. but any surfaces in between will appear flat - like cardboard cut-outs; like an elementary school diorama.That said.. it's Alice in Wonderland... it kinda works for that.Question is.. does it work for Clash of the Titans, or the Titanic re-release in '3D'?
Not too sure about those.Either way, it'll either add or detract... but to say it's a 'scam'?
Nah.  Be more open about how the 3D was produced, perhaps - but those who truly care will look this up in advance.The rest of the complaints seem to be about the 3D bandwagon in general, losing a full stop of light, all that..Not sure why he's complaining, though... he's a CG supe; that means any CG will have to be rendered twice... it's pretty much double the work for the renderfarm, for which they can bill, and a bit more work for the artists as well (to make sure the effects 'work' in 3D).. more billable stuff.
I guess he's speaking more from a personal point of view than a business one.. but in that case his VFX qualifications carry much less weight.
*Waves to 'Alex'*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31532932</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268933880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wong.</p><p>Circular polarizers do this as well.  As a photographer, we use that effect to reduce light to extend exposures (for whispy waterfal effect), or to allow opening the aperture for limited depth of field.  If you're stuck without a neutral density filter, you can double stack a couple polarizers, and rotate one.</p><p>Before auto-focus we could use either polarization.  But linear polarization conflicts with auto-focus, so all modern polarizers are circular.</p><p>And yet still we can take a pair of them and rotate one, and have it go completely black.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wong.Circular polarizers do this as well .
As a photographer , we use that effect to reduce light to extend exposures ( for whispy waterfal effect ) , or to allow opening the aperture for limited depth of field .
If you 're stuck without a neutral density filter , you can double stack a couple polarizers , and rotate one.Before auto-focus we could use either polarization .
But linear polarization conflicts with auto-focus , so all modern polarizers are circular.And yet still we can take a pair of them and rotate one , and have it go completely black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wong.Circular polarizers do this as well.
As a photographer, we use that effect to reduce light to extend exposures (for whispy waterfal effect), or to allow opening the aperture for limited depth of field.
If you're stuck without a neutral density filter, you can double stack a couple polarizers, and rotate one.Before auto-focus we could use either polarization.
But linear polarization conflicts with auto-focus, so all modern polarizers are circular.And yet still we can take a pair of them and rotate one, and have it go completely black.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517408</id>
	<title>The only ones that knew how to do 3D was...</title>
	<author>Logaan</author>
	<datestamp>1268831880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SCTV. Check out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WgmGHz9U4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WgmGHz9U4</a> [youtube.com] for some thrilling 3D cinematics.

Or just skip over to 2:12 to see what I mean.</htmltext>
<tokenext>SCTV .
Check out http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 87WgmGHz9U4 [ youtube.com ] for some thrilling 3D cinematics .
Or just skip over to 2 : 12 to see what I mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SCTV.
Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WgmGHz9U4 [youtube.com] for some thrilling 3D cinematics.
Or just skip over to 2:12 to see what I mean.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513750</id>
	<title>What from hollywood isn't a scam?</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1268857740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything that's come out of hollywood has ever been a scam.</p><p>Selling not-so-cheap copies of media?  That's based entirely on a government granted monopoly, absurd fines, and artificial scarcity of goods.  The profit margins on plastic discs make the margins on furniture and electronics look pathetic by comparison.</p><p>Re-selling you your movies every time a new format comes out?  Given that you supposedly bought the <em>rights</em> to a copy of the movie the first time, they should be free, but obviously aren't.</p><p>Trying to force RedBox to buy movies later?  That's so they can finish milking you via the theaters.</p><p>What's sad, is that in this digital age seeing the business models propped up by new, invasive, unfair laws instead of fading into obsolecence/niche markets like the oil lamp, and horse-drawn carriage have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything that 's come out of hollywood has ever been a scam.Selling not-so-cheap copies of media ?
That 's based entirely on a government granted monopoly , absurd fines , and artificial scarcity of goods .
The profit margins on plastic discs make the margins on furniture and electronics look pathetic by comparison.Re-selling you your movies every time a new format comes out ?
Given that you supposedly bought the rights to a copy of the movie the first time , they should be free , but obviously are n't.Trying to force RedBox to buy movies later ?
That 's so they can finish milking you via the theaters.What 's sad , is that in this digital age seeing the business models propped up by new , invasive , unfair laws instead of fading into obsolecence/niche markets like the oil lamp , and horse-drawn carriage have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything that's come out of hollywood has ever been a scam.Selling not-so-cheap copies of media?
That's based entirely on a government granted monopoly, absurd fines, and artificial scarcity of goods.
The profit margins on plastic discs make the margins on furniture and electronics look pathetic by comparison.Re-selling you your movies every time a new format comes out?
Given that you supposedly bought the rights to a copy of the movie the first time, they should be free, but obviously aren't.Trying to force RedBox to buy movies later?
That's so they can finish milking you via the theaters.What's sad, is that in this digital age seeing the business models propped up by new, invasive, unfair laws instead of fading into obsolecence/niche markets like the oil lamp, and horse-drawn carriage have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512586</id>
	<title>but 3D home theater is next.</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1268853840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a treadmill that the movie theaters can't get ahead on. Instead of trying to stay on the digital advancement treadmill, they should be marketing their tradition and atmosphere etc. I think it's funny that theaters are going to digital projection and touting this as if they were upgrading...even charging more, in Dallas theaters. They should be charging more for the film! It's their only niche. I think it's an obvious opportunity to market something different..."watch a 'real' film" etc...I mean if the movies come on hard drives and are played on digital projectors, then it's basically a badass home theater, with a lot annoying people. With your blu-ray and bigscreen and surround sound, why go to the theater? They tried to invent 3D to distinguish themselves, but now 3D is coming to home theater. Still, basically nobody has cans of film and a 35mm projector in their home theater.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a treadmill that the movie theaters ca n't get ahead on .
Instead of trying to stay on the digital advancement treadmill , they should be marketing their tradition and atmosphere etc .
I think it 's funny that theaters are going to digital projection and touting this as if they were upgrading...even charging more , in Dallas theaters .
They should be charging more for the film !
It 's their only niche .
I think it 's an obvious opportunity to market something different... " watch a 'real ' film " etc...I mean if the movies come on hard drives and are played on digital projectors , then it 's basically a badass home theater , with a lot annoying people .
With your blu-ray and bigscreen and surround sound , why go to the theater ?
They tried to invent 3D to distinguish themselves , but now 3D is coming to home theater .
Still , basically nobody has cans of film and a 35mm projector in their home theater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a treadmill that the movie theaters can't get ahead on.
Instead of trying to stay on the digital advancement treadmill, they should be marketing their tradition and atmosphere etc.
I think it's funny that theaters are going to digital projection and touting this as if they were upgrading...even charging more, in Dallas theaters.
They should be charging more for the film!
It's their only niche.
I think it's an obvious opportunity to market something different..."watch a 'real' film" etc...I mean if the movies come on hard drives and are played on digital projectors, then it's basically a badass home theater, with a lot annoying people.
With your blu-ray and bigscreen and surround sound, why go to the theater?
They tried to invent 3D to distinguish themselves, but now 3D is coming to home theater.
Still, basically nobody has cans of film and a 35mm projector in their home theater.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31522962</id>
	<title>Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268927700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It won't affect your enjoyment of a movie any more than it affects your enjoyment of real life. Just wear the glasses to block out the image from the blind side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't affect your enjoyment of a movie any more than it affects your enjoyment of real life .
Just wear the glasses to block out the image from the blind side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't affect your enjoyment of a movie any more than it affects your enjoyment of real life.
Just wear the glasses to block out the image from the blind side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514618</id>
	<title>Re:Bad? What about it was bad?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268817840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's a perspective problem.  And it's going to vary from person to person.</p><p>The objects are not originally recorded in 3D, and therefore the 2D image is mapped onto a 3D plane.  Try doing this with Google Earth sometime - turn on "terrain" and then zoom in close to some natural feature, set your angle so you are not looking straight down, and rotate around.  A hill just looks different from the top than it does from the sides, and trying to reconstruct a parallax view of it needs two distinct and different images to work.  Obviously the studios are doing something slightly more sophisticated than Google Earth, but the base problem remains - you can't accurately express information that does not exist - you have to create it.</p><p>With 2D, you see someone's nose straight on and your mind is filling in the fact that it's three-dimensional based on your knowledge that noses stick out.  Both eyes see the same image, and there's no depth, but your mind is quite capable of setting that "unreality" aside and filling in stuff.</p><p>With "proper" 3D, there are actually two images of the nose from slightly different angles being projected, similar to how you'd see it in real life.  The glasses act to send one image to your right eye and one to your left, and it works.  It's mimicking exactly how your real eyes work, and expressing that information to them in the format you are used to.  Tip your head, or even bend the glasses wrong or have them too far from or too close to your eyes, and it throws off the image separation, but keep it level and at the right depth-of-field and it works fine.</p><p>With interpolated 3D, you see someone's nose straight on, but two images of it that have been distorted in different ways to give you the impression that you are seeing it in 3D.  It's close enough to reality that our minds want to process it as reality, but it's not close enough that we really can.  At least some people.</p><p>This is somewhat like the cartoon-ishy/real-ishy version of Beowulf that came out a few years ago.  Slashdotters will remember it as the "Liquid Metal Naked Angelina Jolie Movie, Grendel's Mom Was Hot".  Well-executed story, technically brilliant graphics, but the characters were in the "distorted reality zone" for me - not quite real enough to accept as real, but a tad too real to accept as fully unreal.  Every time they did a close-up of a face in that movie, it threw me out of the story for a second.  My visual cortex kept trying to process them as people, then cartoons, then people, and eventually curled up in a scared little ball in the corner of my head and started sobbing uncontrollably.  Even though I thought their telling of a backstory to the whole Beowulf/Grendel relationship was quite good, I actually ended up pausing the movie a few times to monkey-brain could get over the whole "what IS that, a person or a cartoon?" bit, and the dichotomy occasionally had me feeling a bit queasy after a while.  I have little interest in repeating the experience.</p><p>I imagine if you watch a few interpolated 3D movies you'll adjust to them.  Or maybe not.  I have yet to see one, hell I have yet to see a "real" 3D movie.  I don't know if I could handle the perspective shift well, and I'm pretty happy with 2D movies frankly.</p><p>The "distorted reality zone" (my term, there may be an official term for it) is different for each person.  My wife found Beowulf merely annoying in terms of the animation.  Some people I know really loved it.  I found it vaguely disturbing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a perspective problem .
And it 's going to vary from person to person.The objects are not originally recorded in 3D , and therefore the 2D image is mapped onto a 3D plane .
Try doing this with Google Earth sometime - turn on " terrain " and then zoom in close to some natural feature , set your angle so you are not looking straight down , and rotate around .
A hill just looks different from the top than it does from the sides , and trying to reconstruct a parallax view of it needs two distinct and different images to work .
Obviously the studios are doing something slightly more sophisticated than Google Earth , but the base problem remains - you ca n't accurately express information that does not exist - you have to create it.With 2D , you see someone 's nose straight on and your mind is filling in the fact that it 's three-dimensional based on your knowledge that noses stick out .
Both eyes see the same image , and there 's no depth , but your mind is quite capable of setting that " unreality " aside and filling in stuff.With " proper " 3D , there are actually two images of the nose from slightly different angles being projected , similar to how you 'd see it in real life .
The glasses act to send one image to your right eye and one to your left , and it works .
It 's mimicking exactly how your real eyes work , and expressing that information to them in the format you are used to .
Tip your head , or even bend the glasses wrong or have them too far from or too close to your eyes , and it throws off the image separation , but keep it level and at the right depth-of-field and it works fine.With interpolated 3D , you see someone 's nose straight on , but two images of it that have been distorted in different ways to give you the impression that you are seeing it in 3D .
It 's close enough to reality that our minds want to process it as reality , but it 's not close enough that we really can .
At least some people.This is somewhat like the cartoon-ishy/real-ishy version of Beowulf that came out a few years ago .
Slashdotters will remember it as the " Liquid Metal Naked Angelina Jolie Movie , Grendel 's Mom Was Hot " .
Well-executed story , technically brilliant graphics , but the characters were in the " distorted reality zone " for me - not quite real enough to accept as real , but a tad too real to accept as fully unreal .
Every time they did a close-up of a face in that movie , it threw me out of the story for a second .
My visual cortex kept trying to process them as people , then cartoons , then people , and eventually curled up in a scared little ball in the corner of my head and started sobbing uncontrollably .
Even though I thought their telling of a backstory to the whole Beowulf/Grendel relationship was quite good , I actually ended up pausing the movie a few times to monkey-brain could get over the whole " what IS that , a person or a cartoon ?
" bit , and the dichotomy occasionally had me feeling a bit queasy after a while .
I have little interest in repeating the experience.I imagine if you watch a few interpolated 3D movies you 'll adjust to them .
Or maybe not .
I have yet to see one , hell I have yet to see a " real " 3D movie .
I do n't know if I could handle the perspective shift well , and I 'm pretty happy with 2D movies frankly.The " distorted reality zone " ( my term , there may be an official term for it ) is different for each person .
My wife found Beowulf merely annoying in terms of the animation .
Some people I know really loved it .
I found it vaguely disturbing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a perspective problem.
And it's going to vary from person to person.The objects are not originally recorded in 3D, and therefore the 2D image is mapped onto a 3D plane.
Try doing this with Google Earth sometime - turn on "terrain" and then zoom in close to some natural feature, set your angle so you are not looking straight down, and rotate around.
A hill just looks different from the top than it does from the sides, and trying to reconstruct a parallax view of it needs two distinct and different images to work.
Obviously the studios are doing something slightly more sophisticated than Google Earth, but the base problem remains - you can't accurately express information that does not exist - you have to create it.With 2D, you see someone's nose straight on and your mind is filling in the fact that it's three-dimensional based on your knowledge that noses stick out.
Both eyes see the same image, and there's no depth, but your mind is quite capable of setting that "unreality" aside and filling in stuff.With "proper" 3D, there are actually two images of the nose from slightly different angles being projected, similar to how you'd see it in real life.
The glasses act to send one image to your right eye and one to your left, and it works.
It's mimicking exactly how your real eyes work, and expressing that information to them in the format you are used to.
Tip your head, or even bend the glasses wrong or have them too far from or too close to your eyes, and it throws off the image separation, but keep it level and at the right depth-of-field and it works fine.With interpolated 3D, you see someone's nose straight on, but two images of it that have been distorted in different ways to give you the impression that you are seeing it in 3D.
It's close enough to reality that our minds want to process it as reality, but it's not close enough that we really can.
At least some people.This is somewhat like the cartoon-ishy/real-ishy version of Beowulf that came out a few years ago.
Slashdotters will remember it as the "Liquid Metal Naked Angelina Jolie Movie, Grendel's Mom Was Hot".
Well-executed story, technically brilliant graphics, but the characters were in the "distorted reality zone" for me - not quite real enough to accept as real, but a tad too real to accept as fully unreal.
Every time they did a close-up of a face in that movie, it threw me out of the story for a second.
My visual cortex kept trying to process them as people, then cartoons, then people, and eventually curled up in a scared little ball in the corner of my head and started sobbing uncontrollably.
Even though I thought their telling of a backstory to the whole Beowulf/Grendel relationship was quite good, I actually ended up pausing the movie a few times to monkey-brain could get over the whole "what IS that, a person or a cartoon?
" bit, and the dichotomy occasionally had me feeling a bit queasy after a while.
I have little interest in repeating the experience.I imagine if you watch a few interpolated 3D movies you'll adjust to them.
Or maybe not.
I have yet to see one, hell I have yet to see a "real" 3D movie.
I don't know if I could handle the perspective shift well, and I'm pretty happy with 2D movies frankly.The "distorted reality zone" (my term, there may be an official term for it) is different for each person.
My wife found Beowulf merely annoying in terms of the animation.
Some people I know really loved it.
I found it vaguely disturbing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513202</id>
	<title>Re:The hidden perk of 3D...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268855880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What in the bejesus are you talking about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What in the bejesus are you talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What in the bejesus are you talking about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513970</id>
	<title>Re:The hidden perk of 3D...</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1268858700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem is that normal viewing distances is too far.  Sorry but 12 feet from your 42" plasma mounted 6 feet off the ground above the fireplace is the WORST way to watch it.</p><p>a 42" HDTV, 720p is 7 feet.  1080p is 5 feet.  Problem is consumers either ignore it or take the word of the clueless idiot selling the TV at best buy that it will look fantastic at any distance.</p><p><a href="http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/hdtv\_distance\_chart.pdf" title="hdguru.com">http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/hdtv\_distance\_chart.pdf</a> [hdguru.com]</p><p>Thus 90\% of people that own a 1080p set cant see that it's any better than a 480p set. and this is why a regular DVD looks as good as a BluRay to most people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is that normal viewing distances is too far .
Sorry but 12 feet from your 42 " plasma mounted 6 feet off the ground above the fireplace is the WORST way to watch it.a 42 " HDTV , 720p is 7 feet .
1080p is 5 feet .
Problem is consumers either ignore it or take the word of the clueless idiot selling the TV at best buy that it will look fantastic at any distance.http : //hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/hdtv \ _distance \ _chart.pdf [ hdguru.com ] Thus 90 \ % of people that own a 1080p set cant see that it 's any better than a 480p set .
and this is why a regular DVD looks as good as a BluRay to most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is that normal viewing distances is too far.
Sorry but 12 feet from your 42" plasma mounted 6 feet off the ground above the fireplace is the WORST way to watch it.a 42" HDTV, 720p is 7 feet.
1080p is 5 feet.
Problem is consumers either ignore it or take the word of the clueless idiot selling the TV at best buy that it will look fantastic at any distance.http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/hdtv\_distance\_chart.pdf [hdguru.com]Thus 90\% of people that own a 1080p set cant see that it's any better than a 480p set.
and this is why a regular DVD looks as good as a BluRay to most people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513628</id>
	<title>Yet ANOTHER corporate scam, then?</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1268857320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who's going to listen?  I could tell you about the scam that Church &amp; Dwight perpetrated on consumers when it quietly decided to abandon the decades-old standard* for diameter of toothpaste tube mouth and cap, for no other reason than to maneuver people into using more toothpaste, but you would you even listen?  Would you actually make different decisions based on that revelation?  Would you rebel and make your own toothpaste?  No?  I didn't think so.  Are average consumers, even after hearing/reading this, really going to change their behavior and choose not to consume these 3D movies?</p><p>There are SO MANY such corporate "scams" that they're actually the rule, not the exception.  When it comes to imagining ways to divest people of money, corporations have NO ethics at all short of that codified as "law".  That Libertarian "no force, no fraud" refrain is a joke.  The corporate world IS ALL ABOUT FRAUD.  Even a diligent consumer like me has a hard time keeping track of all of them; what of less educated or dedicated consumers?</p><p>* (It was such a de facto standard that third parties could make products like a "backpacker's toothbrush" that included a miniature tube that could be refilled by threading a regular toothpaste tube onto it.  Imagine my surprise to discover that my latest tube of Aim Toothpaste no longer fit the opening of my backpacker toothbrush that I bought at REI in the 80s.  Toothpaste and toothbrushes have become a ridiculously manipulative market in the last few decades.  They even went so far as to add extra static brush surface to some of the oscillating brushes - Crest, I'm looking at YOU - in the hope that people would mindlessly cover all of it with toothpaste, thus using more than actually necessary.  Isn't it ironic that corporations are going "green" even while still encouraging waste and premature obsolescence?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's going to listen ?
I could tell you about the scam that Church &amp; Dwight perpetrated on consumers when it quietly decided to abandon the decades-old standard * for diameter of toothpaste tube mouth and cap , for no other reason than to maneuver people into using more toothpaste , but you would you even listen ?
Would you actually make different decisions based on that revelation ?
Would you rebel and make your own toothpaste ?
No ? I did n't think so .
Are average consumers , even after hearing/reading this , really going to change their behavior and choose not to consume these 3D movies ? There are SO MANY such corporate " scams " that they 're actually the rule , not the exception .
When it comes to imagining ways to divest people of money , corporations have NO ethics at all short of that codified as " law " .
That Libertarian " no force , no fraud " refrain is a joke .
The corporate world IS ALL ABOUT FRAUD .
Even a diligent consumer like me has a hard time keeping track of all of them ; what of less educated or dedicated consumers ?
* ( It was such a de facto standard that third parties could make products like a " backpacker 's toothbrush " that included a miniature tube that could be refilled by threading a regular toothpaste tube onto it .
Imagine my surprise to discover that my latest tube of Aim Toothpaste no longer fit the opening of my backpacker toothbrush that I bought at REI in the 80s .
Toothpaste and toothbrushes have become a ridiculously manipulative market in the last few decades .
They even went so far as to add extra static brush surface to some of the oscillating brushes - Crest , I 'm looking at YOU - in the hope that people would mindlessly cover all of it with toothpaste , thus using more than actually necessary .
Is n't it ironic that corporations are going " green " even while still encouraging waste and premature obsolescence ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's going to listen?
I could tell you about the scam that Church &amp; Dwight perpetrated on consumers when it quietly decided to abandon the decades-old standard* for diameter of toothpaste tube mouth and cap, for no other reason than to maneuver people into using more toothpaste, but you would you even listen?
Would you actually make different decisions based on that revelation?
Would you rebel and make your own toothpaste?
No?  I didn't think so.
Are average consumers, even after hearing/reading this, really going to change their behavior and choose not to consume these 3D movies?There are SO MANY such corporate "scams" that they're actually the rule, not the exception.
When it comes to imagining ways to divest people of money, corporations have NO ethics at all short of that codified as "law".
That Libertarian "no force, no fraud" refrain is a joke.
The corporate world IS ALL ABOUT FRAUD.
Even a diligent consumer like me has a hard time keeping track of all of them; what of less educated or dedicated consumers?
* (It was such a de facto standard that third parties could make products like a "backpacker's toothbrush" that included a miniature tube that could be refilled by threading a regular toothpaste tube onto it.
Imagine my surprise to discover that my latest tube of Aim Toothpaste no longer fit the opening of my backpacker toothbrush that I bought at REI in the 80s.
Toothpaste and toothbrushes have become a ridiculously manipulative market in the last few decades.
They even went so far as to add extra static brush surface to some of the oscillating brushes - Crest, I'm looking at YOU - in the hope that people would mindlessly cover all of it with toothpaste, thus using more than actually necessary.
Isn't it ironic that corporations are going "green" even while still encouraging waste and premature obsolescence?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514774</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1268818440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I think the headaches and ghosting are a function of your distance from the screen.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Movie theaters are set up with the ideal seats in the middle.  That can usually be judged by the speakers on the walls.  Directly in the middle (front to back) should put your head at looking directly towards the middle of the screen.   Then you have to find the middle left to right.  If the theater is set up equally, it's easy to count seats.  I've been in theaters that are seated like 2, 20, 8 , where there are 2 on the left row, 20 in the middle, and 8 on the right.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Once you've found the middle seat, you should find that it has a 36 degree field of view (angle between the left and right sides), and need no more than 15 degrees from looking directly forward to the top and bottom of the screen (30 degrees).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Assuming the theater was designed well, finding this middle seat should be ideal for picture and sound.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I've been in some great theaters, that you get a beautiful experience.  I've also been in some where the "middle" isn't the middle.  Sometimes they've just tried to maximize the available space, say if they've retrofitted a space in a strip mall for a movie theater.   They'll add a little tilt to the floor, and cram as many seats as they can in.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; There are all kinds of guidelines available for both professional theaters and home theaters.  Really, if you follow them all as accurately as you can, you can have a beautiful viewing experience at home.  I had a 10' wide screen with a DLP projector in my house, with the center of the couch being the optimal position for everything.  The view height of the screen was perfect for that, and the viewing distance was perfect.  All the speakers were tuned for exactly that position.  It was still really good if you were on either end of the couch.  You could get lost in a movie, and completely forget that you were sitting in the living room.   It takes a good bit of time to set up though.  I spent a whole day with a friend, pulling wires through the ceiling for my speakers, so they wouldn't be exposed.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; So, in the regards of the headaches.  There will be some segment of the audience who will have an excellent view, and the sound will be just right.  If you're too close or too off center, ya, it'll give you a headache.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    I think the headaches and ghosting are a function of your distance from the screen .
    Movie theaters are set up with the ideal seats in the middle .
That can usually be judged by the speakers on the walls .
Directly in the middle ( front to back ) should put your head at looking directly towards the middle of the screen .
Then you have to find the middle left to right .
If the theater is set up equally , it 's easy to count seats .
I 've been in theaters that are seated like 2 , 20 , 8 , where there are 2 on the left row , 20 in the middle , and 8 on the right .
    Once you 've found the middle seat , you should find that it has a 36 degree field of view ( angle between the left and right sides ) , and need no more than 15 degrees from looking directly forward to the top and bottom of the screen ( 30 degrees ) .
    Assuming the theater was designed well , finding this middle seat should be ideal for picture and sound .
    I 've been in some great theaters , that you get a beautiful experience .
I 've also been in some where the " middle " is n't the middle .
Sometimes they 've just tried to maximize the available space , say if they 've retrofitted a space in a strip mall for a movie theater .
They 'll add a little tilt to the floor , and cram as many seats as they can in .
    There are all kinds of guidelines available for both professional theaters and home theaters .
Really , if you follow them all as accurately as you can , you can have a beautiful viewing experience at home .
I had a 10 ' wide screen with a DLP projector in my house , with the center of the couch being the optimal position for everything .
The view height of the screen was perfect for that , and the viewing distance was perfect .
All the speakers were tuned for exactly that position .
It was still really good if you were on either end of the couch .
You could get lost in a movie , and completely forget that you were sitting in the living room .
It takes a good bit of time to set up though .
I spent a whole day with a friend , pulling wires through the ceiling for my speakers , so they would n't be exposed .
: )     So , in the regards of the headaches .
There will be some segment of the audience who will have an excellent view , and the sound will be just right .
If you 're too close or too off center , ya , it 'll give you a headache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    I think the headaches and ghosting are a function of your distance from the screen.
    Movie theaters are set up with the ideal seats in the middle.
That can usually be judged by the speakers on the walls.
Directly in the middle (front to back) should put your head at looking directly towards the middle of the screen.
Then you have to find the middle left to right.
If the theater is set up equally, it's easy to count seats.
I've been in theaters that are seated like 2, 20, 8 , where there are 2 on the left row, 20 in the middle, and 8 on the right.
    Once you've found the middle seat, you should find that it has a 36 degree field of view (angle between the left and right sides), and need no more than 15 degrees from looking directly forward to the top and bottom of the screen (30 degrees).
    Assuming the theater was designed well, finding this middle seat should be ideal for picture and sound.
    I've been in some great theaters, that you get a beautiful experience.
I've also been in some where the "middle" isn't the middle.
Sometimes they've just tried to maximize the available space, say if they've retrofitted a space in a strip mall for a movie theater.
They'll add a little tilt to the floor, and cram as many seats as they can in.
    There are all kinds of guidelines available for both professional theaters and home theaters.
Really, if you follow them all as accurately as you can, you can have a beautiful viewing experience at home.
I had a 10' wide screen with a DLP projector in my house, with the center of the couch being the optimal position for everything.
The view height of the screen was perfect for that, and the viewing distance was perfect.
All the speakers were tuned for exactly that position.
It was still really good if you were on either end of the couch.
You could get lost in a movie, and completely forget that you were sitting in the living room.
It takes a good bit of time to set up though.
I spent a whole day with a friend, pulling wires through the ceiling for my speakers, so they wouldn't be exposed.
:)
    So, in the regards of the headaches.
There will be some segment of the audience who will have an excellent view, and the sound will be just right.
If you're too close or too off center, ya, it'll give you a headache.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518134</id>
	<title>In-Three 2D to 3D conversions are very well done</title>
	<author>mateo650</author>
	<datestamp>1268838000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The conversions done by In-Three which include G-Force and Alice and Wonderland are done by hundreds of people, frame by frame, and are very well done.</p><p>There is no difference between the amount of light lost using 3 cent polarized glasses or more expensive ones. While lighting is an issue for 3D movie releases that doesn't make 3D movies a scam.</p><p>The market has spoken 3D is the future. 3D is coming to the home in a massive way.</p><p>Automated real-time 2D to 3D is not acceptable qualityat all yet Alice and Wonderland and the upcoming Titanic are a completely different story.</p><p>I would be that this guy that wanted to rip his glasses off probably already wears corrective lenses every day (usually the case with these types)</p><p>Recall there were those that said that movies with sound and color were a fad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The conversions done by In-Three which include G-Force and Alice and Wonderland are done by hundreds of people , frame by frame , and are very well done.There is no difference between the amount of light lost using 3 cent polarized glasses or more expensive ones .
While lighting is an issue for 3D movie releases that does n't make 3D movies a scam.The market has spoken 3D is the future .
3D is coming to the home in a massive way.Automated real-time 2D to 3D is not acceptable qualityat all yet Alice and Wonderland and the upcoming Titanic are a completely different story.I would be that this guy that wanted to rip his glasses off probably already wears corrective lenses every day ( usually the case with these types ) Recall there were those that said that movies with sound and color were a fad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The conversions done by In-Three which include G-Force and Alice and Wonderland are done by hundreds of people, frame by frame, and are very well done.There is no difference between the amount of light lost using 3 cent polarized glasses or more expensive ones.
While lighting is an issue for 3D movie releases that doesn't make 3D movies a scam.The market has spoken 3D is the future.
3D is coming to the home in a massive way.Automated real-time 2D to 3D is not acceptable qualityat all yet Alice and Wonderland and the upcoming Titanic are a completely different story.I would be that this guy that wanted to rip his glasses off probably already wears corrective lenses every day (usually the case with these types)Recall there were those that said that movies with sound and color were a fad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513192</id>
	<title>Re:Where 3D works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268855820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember colorization?</p></div><p>No.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember colorization ? No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember colorization?No.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513610</id>
	<title>Re:I am an audience member.</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1268857260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost all the 3D movies I've watched were either made with 3D in the first place, and those were all good experiences.  The exception was Toy Story 1 &amp; 2 in 3D, and for that, they went back to all the original data files and re-rendered them for proper stereoscopic effect.  There are services that scan a 2D film and make fake 3D, but I've yet to see a 3D movie made that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost all the 3D movies I 've watched were either made with 3D in the first place , and those were all good experiences .
The exception was Toy Story 1 &amp; 2 in 3D , and for that , they went back to all the original data files and re-rendered them for proper stereoscopic effect .
There are services that scan a 2D film and make fake 3D , but I 've yet to see a 3D movie made that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost all the 3D movies I've watched were either made with 3D in the first place, and those were all good experiences.
The exception was Toy Story 1 &amp; 2 in 3D, and for that, they went back to all the original data files and re-rendered them for proper stereoscopic effect.
There are services that scan a 2D film and make fake 3D, but I've yet to see a 3D movie made that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515834</id>
	<title>They need something</title>
	<author>exomondo</author>
	<datestamp>1268822640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First i just want to say that i think 3D movies are gimmicky and don't really add to the experience. I saw Avatar in 2D, then 3D and to be honest I wasn't that impressed. But the reality is movie studios (and theaters) need something to stay ahead of the curve, with high quality HD home cinema equipment becoming more and more affordable you can get that kind of cinema experience at home, the theaters need to offer something more, redefine the 'cinema experience' as something special that you can only get at the movies, at the moment all they have is the advance time before it gets to DVD/Bluray/Streaming. I don't think 3D is it, but it seems they are desperately trying to find something compelling to win back audiences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First i just want to say that i think 3D movies are gimmicky and do n't really add to the experience .
I saw Avatar in 2D , then 3D and to be honest I was n't that impressed .
But the reality is movie studios ( and theaters ) need something to stay ahead of the curve , with high quality HD home cinema equipment becoming more and more affordable you can get that kind of cinema experience at home , the theaters need to offer something more , redefine the 'cinema experience ' as something special that you can only get at the movies , at the moment all they have is the advance time before it gets to DVD/Bluray/Streaming .
I do n't think 3D is it , but it seems they are desperately trying to find something compelling to win back audiences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First i just want to say that i think 3D movies are gimmicky and don't really add to the experience.
I saw Avatar in 2D, then 3D and to be honest I wasn't that impressed.
But the reality is movie studios (and theaters) need something to stay ahead of the curve, with high quality HD home cinema equipment becoming more and more affordable you can get that kind of cinema experience at home, the theaters need to offer something more, redefine the 'cinema experience' as something special that you can only get at the movies, at the moment all they have is the advance time before it gets to DVD/Bluray/Streaming.
I don't think 3D is it, but it seems they are desperately trying to find something compelling to win back audiences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512496</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Yes</title>
	<author>DIplomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1268853600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Theaters have been dropping in popularity as DVD sales go up and home theater systems get better -- 3D is trying to pull viewers back to the theater.</p></div><p>Theaters have been dropping in popularity due to ridiculous prices. </p><p>I used to see at least 1 movie a month, but when 2 tickets and a soda costs $30 I pick 1 movie a year to go see.</p><p>$12.75 for a movie is outrageous (I live in NYC) but at $15 I'll just stay home.</p><p>It's not the piracy that's killing movies, its the prices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theaters have been dropping in popularity as DVD sales go up and home theater systems get better -- 3D is trying to pull viewers back to the theater.Theaters have been dropping in popularity due to ridiculous prices .
I used to see at least 1 movie a month , but when 2 tickets and a soda costs $ 30 I pick 1 movie a year to go see. $ 12.75 for a movie is outrageous ( I live in NYC ) but at $ 15 I 'll just stay home.It 's not the piracy that 's killing movies , its the prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theaters have been dropping in popularity as DVD sales go up and home theater systems get better -- 3D is trying to pull viewers back to the theater.Theaters have been dropping in popularity due to ridiculous prices.
I used to see at least 1 movie a month, but when 2 tickets and a soda costs $30 I pick 1 movie a year to go see.$12.75 for a movie is outrageous (I live in NYC) but at $15 I'll just stay home.It's not the piracy that's killing movies, its the prices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515524</id>
	<title>Re:I am an audience member.</title>
	<author>sammyF70</author>
	<datestamp>1268821200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would you have enjoyed it less if it had been 2D (albeit with stronger colours/brighter) ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you have enjoyed it less if it had been 2D ( albeit with stronger colours/brighter ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you have enjoyed it less if it had been 2D (albeit with stronger colours/brighter) ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513400</id>
	<title>Re:New tech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268856600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This 3d technology isn't new, though. Spacehunter came out in 1983 or thereabouts. That also used polarization. The only difference I saw with Avatar was with digital effects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This 3d technology is n't new , though .
Spacehunter came out in 1983 or thereabouts .
That also used polarization .
The only difference I saw with Avatar was with digital effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This 3d technology isn't new, though.
Spacehunter came out in 1983 or thereabouts.
That also used polarization.
The only difference I saw with Avatar was with digital effects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517904</id>
	<title>Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268835960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you insensitive clod! I have no eyes, just a lollypop on me tongue!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you insensitive clod !
I have no eyes , just a lollypop on me tongue !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you insensitive clod!
I have no eyes, just a lollypop on me tongue!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517896</id>
	<title>Re:The hidden perk of 3D...</title>
	<author>lgw</author>
	<datestamp>1268835840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My goal when watching TV is to enjoy my evening, not to enjoy the technology.  The TV and my couch are in positions optimized for comfort, not resolution (and anyhow I rarely sit and watch a movie, it's somehting that's on while I'm doing stuff around the house).  I thouroghly enjoy DVD resolution on my ED 42" monitor, and still haven't seen the point in HD.  Eventually I will be legally forced to upgrade, I suspect, as DVD players will no longer be able to offer 480p component output, but that's a different rant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My goal when watching TV is to enjoy my evening , not to enjoy the technology .
The TV and my couch are in positions optimized for comfort , not resolution ( and anyhow I rarely sit and watch a movie , it 's somehting that 's on while I 'm doing stuff around the house ) .
I thouroghly enjoy DVD resolution on my ED 42 " monitor , and still have n't seen the point in HD .
Eventually I will be legally forced to upgrade , I suspect , as DVD players will no longer be able to offer 480p component output , but that 's a different rant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My goal when watching TV is to enjoy my evening, not to enjoy the technology.
The TV and my couch are in positions optimized for comfort, not resolution (and anyhow I rarely sit and watch a movie, it's somehting that's on while I'm doing stuff around the house).
I thouroghly enjoy DVD resolution on my ED 42" monitor, and still haven't seen the point in HD.
Eventually I will be legally forced to upgrade, I suspect, as DVD players will no longer be able to offer 480p component output, but that's a different rant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512782</id>
	<title>Re:The hidden perk of 3D...</title>
	<author>cptdondo</author>
	<datestamp>1268854380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah humbug.  Most HD stuff is indistinguishable from DVD stuff, at least for normal people at normal viewing distances on normal equipment.</p><p>I don't see a movie shown in a "holotank" or whatever Heinlein called it.  You'd have to have cameras all around, and then stitch them together.</p><p>I abhor the current fixation in Hollywood on big-bang graphics and effects at the expense of any real plots or enticing characters.</p><p>Heck, get a copy of Metropolis; shot in 1927 without any fancy technology, it still leaves you deeply disturbed and affected, far more than most of the hi-tech hi-def crap that rolls out of Hollywood today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah humbug .
Most HD stuff is indistinguishable from DVD stuff , at least for normal people at normal viewing distances on normal equipment.I do n't see a movie shown in a " holotank " or whatever Heinlein called it .
You 'd have to have cameras all around , and then stitch them together.I abhor the current fixation in Hollywood on big-bang graphics and effects at the expense of any real plots or enticing characters.Heck , get a copy of Metropolis ; shot in 1927 without any fancy technology , it still leaves you deeply disturbed and affected , far more than most of the hi-tech hi-def crap that rolls out of Hollywood today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah humbug.
Most HD stuff is indistinguishable from DVD stuff, at least for normal people at normal viewing distances on normal equipment.I don't see a movie shown in a "holotank" or whatever Heinlein called it.
You'd have to have cameras all around, and then stitch them together.I abhor the current fixation in Hollywood on big-bang graphics and effects at the expense of any real plots or enticing characters.Heck, get a copy of Metropolis; shot in 1927 without any fancy technology, it still leaves you deeply disturbed and affected, far more than most of the hi-tech hi-def crap that rolls out of Hollywood today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512530</id>
	<title>Bad?  What about it was bad?</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1268853660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't think the 3D version of Alice was bad...in fact, I saw the 3D version by myself while my fiancee was gone, and then saw it in 2D when she was back in town.  I definitely enjoyed the 3D version a lot more...the added depth it gave to everything really made the world pop off the screen more (literally and figuratively), and I found myself drawn into it a lot more.</p><p>Plus, let's not forget that a 3D movie is a movie that is shown digitally.  It could just be me adjusting to more digital content, but film seems to be looking worse and worse nowadays in the theater, no matter which one I go to.  There is still a "warmth" to it that digital doesn't have, but when I pay 10-12 dollars to see a movie on a big screen, I don't want parts of the movie to look blurry and parts of it look good...I want the <i>whole thing</i> to look good.</p><p>And, just to piss off the people that I piss off every time I do this, my review of Alice:  <a href="http://livingwithanerd.com/alice-in-wonderland/" title="livingwithanerd.com">http://livingwithanerd.com/alice-in-wonderland/</a> [livingwithanerd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't think the 3D version of Alice was bad...in fact , I saw the 3D version by myself while my fiancee was gone , and then saw it in 2D when she was back in town .
I definitely enjoyed the 3D version a lot more...the added depth it gave to everything really made the world pop off the screen more ( literally and figuratively ) , and I found myself drawn into it a lot more.Plus , let 's not forget that a 3D movie is a movie that is shown digitally .
It could just be me adjusting to more digital content , but film seems to be looking worse and worse nowadays in the theater , no matter which one I go to .
There is still a " warmth " to it that digital does n't have , but when I pay 10-12 dollars to see a movie on a big screen , I do n't want parts of the movie to look blurry and parts of it look good...I want the whole thing to look good.And , just to piss off the people that I piss off every time I do this , my review of Alice : http : //livingwithanerd.com/alice-in-wonderland/ [ livingwithanerd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't think the 3D version of Alice was bad...in fact, I saw the 3D version by myself while my fiancee was gone, and then saw it in 2D when she was back in town.
I definitely enjoyed the 3D version a lot more...the added depth it gave to everything really made the world pop off the screen more (literally and figuratively), and I found myself drawn into it a lot more.Plus, let's not forget that a 3D movie is a movie that is shown digitally.
It could just be me adjusting to more digital content, but film seems to be looking worse and worse nowadays in the theater, no matter which one I go to.
There is still a "warmth" to it that digital doesn't have, but when I pay 10-12 dollars to see a movie on a big screen, I don't want parts of the movie to look blurry and parts of it look good...I want the whole thing to look good.And, just to piss off the people that I piss off every time I do this, my review of Alice:  http://livingwithanerd.com/alice-in-wonderland/ [livingwithanerd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31528176</id>
	<title>Re:Bad? What about it was bad?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268904360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There is still a "warmth" to it that digital doesn't have</i></p><p>That's why they filmed most of the last Star Trek movie in film, then digitized the film (see the extras on the DVD where they note this).</p><p><i>I don't want parts of the movie to look blurry and parts of it look good...I want the whole thing to look good</i></p><p>That's the fault of the theater's projectionist, not the film maker, unless he WANTS parts of it to look blurry for artistic reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is still a " warmth " to it that digital does n't haveThat 's why they filmed most of the last Star Trek movie in film , then digitized the film ( see the extras on the DVD where they note this ) .I do n't want parts of the movie to look blurry and parts of it look good...I want the whole thing to look goodThat 's the fault of the theater 's projectionist , not the film maker , unless he WANTS parts of it to look blurry for artistic reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is still a "warmth" to it that digital doesn't haveThat's why they filmed most of the last Star Trek movie in film, then digitized the film (see the extras on the DVD where they note this).I don't want parts of the movie to look blurry and parts of it look good...I want the whole thing to look goodThat's the fault of the theater's projectionist, not the film maker, unless he WANTS parts of it to look blurry for artistic reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516350</id>
	<title>Re:The glasses suck terribly</title>
	<author>steveg</author>
	<datestamp>1268824980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in the same boat.  I don't think it's the weight of the glasses that's causing me trouble, but the fuzziness that comes from two sets of glasses, one in front of the other.</p><p>About two months ago I told my friends that I normally see movies with, "I'm done with 3D."  I'll go see the 2D versions, but until they come up with a "no-glasses" 3D technology, I'm opting out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in the same boat .
I do n't think it 's the weight of the glasses that 's causing me trouble , but the fuzziness that comes from two sets of glasses , one in front of the other.About two months ago I told my friends that I normally see movies with , " I 'm done with 3D .
" I 'll go see the 2D versions , but until they come up with a " no-glasses " 3D technology , I 'm opting out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in the same boat.
I don't think it's the weight of the glasses that's causing me trouble, but the fuzziness that comes from two sets of glasses, one in front of the other.About two months ago I told my friends that I normally see movies with, "I'm done with 3D.
"  I'll go see the 2D versions, but until they come up with a "no-glasses" 3D technology, I'm opting out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514056</id>
	<title>Re:I am an audience member.</title>
	<author>SLi</author>
	<datestamp>1268859060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually liked Alice's 3D more than Avatar's. Granted, it was somewhat parallax (with only a few levels used at least in some places), but it was overall way more deep. Avatar's 3D effect was to me a bit shallow, it could have been deeper, but then I wonder if that would have caused more people to have nausea. Seems natural to me though: When you film in 3D, I'd guess it's much harder to get stuff that comes way out of the screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually liked Alice 's 3D more than Avatar 's .
Granted , it was somewhat parallax ( with only a few levels used at least in some places ) , but it was overall way more deep .
Avatar 's 3D effect was to me a bit shallow , it could have been deeper , but then I wonder if that would have caused more people to have nausea .
Seems natural to me though : When you film in 3D , I 'd guess it 's much harder to get stuff that comes way out of the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually liked Alice's 3D more than Avatar's.
Granted, it was somewhat parallax (with only a few levels used at least in some places), but it was overall way more deep.
Avatar's 3D effect was to me a bit shallow, it could have been deeper, but then I wonder if that would have caused more people to have nausea.
Seems natural to me though: When you film in 3D, I'd guess it's much harder to get stuff that comes way out of the screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512622</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Yes</title>
	<author>Godji</author>
	<datestamp>1268853960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, when all they really need to do is to skip the ads. It would work for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , when all they really need to do is to skip the ads .
It would work for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, when all they really need to do is to skip the ads.
It would work for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513640</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on Which 3D Tech...</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1268857380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw Alice in IMAX 3D this last weekend.  The glasses had green and purple tint to them.  I suspect they were also polarized, though, as moving my head a certain way made everything look like I wasn't wearing them.</p><p>I far prefer the 'cheap' RealD to the green/purple IMAX.</p><p>Oddly, I've been in IMAX 3D before and they weren't green/purple at that point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw Alice in IMAX 3D this last weekend .
The glasses had green and purple tint to them .
I suspect they were also polarized , though , as moving my head a certain way made everything look like I was n't wearing them.I far prefer the 'cheap ' RealD to the green/purple IMAX.Oddly , I 've been in IMAX 3D before and they were n't green/purple at that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw Alice in IMAX 3D this last weekend.
The glasses had green and purple tint to them.
I suspect they were also polarized, though, as moving my head a certain way made everything look like I wasn't wearing them.I far prefer the 'cheap' RealD to the green/purple IMAX.Oddly, I've been in IMAX 3D before and they weren't green/purple at that point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515444</id>
	<title>Re:but 3D home theater is next.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268820780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree that it is a treadmill and it is something that they're going to have to stay alert with, I'm not convinced that marketing their tradition and atmosphere will work very well.</p><p>Who goes to see the most movies?  Teenagers.  Teenagers, frankly, don't give a rat's patootie about seeing movies the way Mom &amp; Dad saw them--if anything, that's a turn-<i>off</i>.  And some of the more profitable theaters are creating an "atmosphere" similar to what you might have at home (eg, big comfy chairs) as well as having servers bring you food and drinks.  So the old theater atmosphere of crowded rooms full of uncomfortable chairs is going away.</p><p>Nope.  It's a technology race.  The theaters have an advantage, though.  They have more money to spend on equipment than I do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that it is a treadmill and it is something that they 're going to have to stay alert with , I 'm not convinced that marketing their tradition and atmosphere will work very well.Who goes to see the most movies ?
Teenagers. Teenagers , frankly , do n't give a rat 's patootie about seeing movies the way Mom &amp; Dad saw them--if anything , that 's a turn-off .
And some of the more profitable theaters are creating an " atmosphere " similar to what you might have at home ( eg , big comfy chairs ) as well as having servers bring you food and drinks .
So the old theater atmosphere of crowded rooms full of uncomfortable chairs is going away.Nope .
It 's a technology race .
The theaters have an advantage , though .
They have more money to spend on equipment than I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that it is a treadmill and it is something that they're going to have to stay alert with, I'm not convinced that marketing their tradition and atmosphere will work very well.Who goes to see the most movies?
Teenagers.  Teenagers, frankly, don't give a rat's patootie about seeing movies the way Mom &amp; Dad saw them--if anything, that's a turn-off.
And some of the more profitable theaters are creating an "atmosphere" similar to what you might have at home (eg, big comfy chairs) as well as having servers bring you food and drinks.
So the old theater atmosphere of crowded rooms full of uncomfortable chairs is going away.Nope.
It's a technology race.
The theaters have an advantage, though.
They have more money to spend on equipment than I do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512632</id>
	<title>Not all films can even convert</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268853960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To get the effect you need contrast. Look at Avatar. They nursed every shot and still some shots were flat. For me the most effective were the early stuff of him floating around in the space ship. The shots of haze or clouds had zero 3D effect and this was the most effective film ever made. If the film is hazy or muddy, it's done for style reasons, there won't be any 3D effect. 9 times out of 10 I final 3D films annoying and I'm a film fan. Avatar in 3D Imax inspite of the flickering was amazing. Alice in Wonderland was annoying. It made the film dark and the 3D effect was lame through most of it. Saying it'll save film is like saying whit wall ties will save gas guzzlers when gas hits $5 a gallon. Keep the cost down and quality up and there's a market out there. 3D has always and will always be a fad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To get the effect you need contrast .
Look at Avatar .
They nursed every shot and still some shots were flat .
For me the most effective were the early stuff of him floating around in the space ship .
The shots of haze or clouds had zero 3D effect and this was the most effective film ever made .
If the film is hazy or muddy , it 's done for style reasons , there wo n't be any 3D effect .
9 times out of 10 I final 3D films annoying and I 'm a film fan .
Avatar in 3D Imax inspite of the flickering was amazing .
Alice in Wonderland was annoying .
It made the film dark and the 3D effect was lame through most of it .
Saying it 'll save film is like saying whit wall ties will save gas guzzlers when gas hits $ 5 a gallon .
Keep the cost down and quality up and there 's a market out there .
3D has always and will always be a fad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To get the effect you need contrast.
Look at Avatar.
They nursed every shot and still some shots were flat.
For me the most effective were the early stuff of him floating around in the space ship.
The shots of haze or clouds had zero 3D effect and this was the most effective film ever made.
If the film is hazy or muddy, it's done for style reasons, there won't be any 3D effect.
9 times out of 10 I final 3D films annoying and I'm a film fan.
Avatar in 3D Imax inspite of the flickering was amazing.
Alice in Wonderland was annoying.
It made the film dark and the 3D effect was lame through most of it.
Saying it'll save film is like saying whit wall ties will save gas guzzlers when gas hits $5 a gallon.
Keep the cost down and quality up and there's a market out there.
3D has always and will always be a fad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517444</id>
	<title>Re:The glasses suck terribly</title>
	<author>Ocker3</author>
	<datestamp>1268832180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here in backwards Australia, (at least at my local theatre on the sunshine coast in SE Qld), they hand out 3d glasses that quite easily sit on the outside of my regular glasses. They're obviously designed to allow glasses-wearing patrons to wear both their prescription glasses and the 3d glasses at the same time without significant messing around. <br>
<br>
I Did get quite overwhelmed by Avatar, however I also have a slight astigmatism in my right eye, which may have had something to do with it. I felt quite overloaded with sensory information, which is probably due to the Astigmatism, the length of the movie, and not having seen a 3D movie recently (most of the older glasses would only sit in the same place my regular glasses do).<br>
<br>
I saw Alice in 3D (kinda meh movie), didn't get the same overload problems, however it was shorter, obviously shot/created via a different method, and was the 2nd 3D movie I've seen in recent months.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in backwards Australia , ( at least at my local theatre on the sunshine coast in SE Qld ) , they hand out 3d glasses that quite easily sit on the outside of my regular glasses .
They 're obviously designed to allow glasses-wearing patrons to wear both their prescription glasses and the 3d glasses at the same time without significant messing around .
I Did get quite overwhelmed by Avatar , however I also have a slight astigmatism in my right eye , which may have had something to do with it .
I felt quite overloaded with sensory information , which is probably due to the Astigmatism , the length of the movie , and not having seen a 3D movie recently ( most of the older glasses would only sit in the same place my regular glasses do ) .
I saw Alice in 3D ( kinda meh movie ) , did n't get the same overload problems , however it was shorter , obviously shot/created via a different method , and was the 2nd 3D movie I 've seen in recent months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in backwards Australia, (at least at my local theatre on the sunshine coast in SE Qld), they hand out 3d glasses that quite easily sit on the outside of my regular glasses.
They're obviously designed to allow glasses-wearing patrons to wear both their prescription glasses and the 3d glasses at the same time without significant messing around.
I Did get quite overwhelmed by Avatar, however I also have a slight astigmatism in my right eye, which may have had something to do with it.
I felt quite overloaded with sensory information, which is probably due to the Astigmatism, the length of the movie, and not having seen a 3D movie recently (most of the older glasses would only sit in the same place my regular glasses do).
I saw Alice in 3D (kinda meh movie), didn't get the same overload problems, however it was shorter, obviously shot/created via a different method, and was the 2nd 3D movie I've seen in recent months.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513016</id>
	<title>If they don't show a 2D version in the theater</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1268855220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't go to see the movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't go to see the movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't go to see the movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515136</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on Which 3D Tech...</title>
	<author>oji-sama</author>
	<datestamp>1268819820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you tried XpanD 3D (active-shutter 3D glasses)? So far it is the only format I've tried. It was very immersive, although the glasses were a bit heavy... Very fast horizontal movements didn't look quite right in Monsters vs Aliens, but didn't have such problems with Avatar. I wonder if I now filter the problems away or have learned to watch it 'correctly'... The colours are ok, although a bit of range is lost when compared to 2D (I think).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried XpanD 3D ( active-shutter 3D glasses ) ?
So far it is the only format I 've tried .
It was very immersive , although the glasses were a bit heavy... Very fast horizontal movements did n't look quite right in Monsters vs Aliens , but did n't have such problems with Avatar .
I wonder if I now filter the problems away or have learned to watch it 'correctly'... The colours are ok , although a bit of range is lost when compared to 2D ( I think ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried XpanD 3D (active-shutter 3D glasses)?
So far it is the only format I've tried.
It was very immersive, although the glasses were a bit heavy... Very fast horizontal movements didn't look quite right in Monsters vs Aliens, but didn't have such problems with Avatar.
I wonder if I now filter the problems away or have learned to watch it 'correctly'... The colours are ok, although a bit of range is lost when compared to 2D (I think).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512458</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1268853540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't exactly give me a headache, but it did screw with my eyes. Not an experience I want to repeat (I went into the theater hoping it would be better than the 3D lenses I'd played with before. No such luck.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't exactly give me a headache , but it did screw with my eyes .
Not an experience I want to repeat ( I went into the theater hoping it would be better than the 3D lenses I 'd played with before .
No such luck .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't exactly give me a headache, but it did screw with my eyes.
Not an experience I want to repeat (I went into the theater hoping it would be better than the 3D lenses I'd played with before.
No such luck.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512746</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Yes</title>
	<author>Splab</author>
	<datestamp>1268854260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouw, here we pay 120DKR (just under $20) to see Alice in Wonderland.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wouw , here we pay 120DKR ( just under $ 20 ) to see Alice in Wonderland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouw, here we pay 120DKR (just under $20) to see Alice in Wonderland.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514902</id>
	<title>Re:The hidden perk of 3D...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268818980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That&rsquo;s an interesting comparison. Metropolis consists of a lot of bombastic visuals that were created using huge models, huge numbers of shaved extras, painstaking stop motion animation, etc. But the story and the characters are so poor that the whole thing is not believable and a strain on the viewer. It was torn to shreds by critics back then. Viewers snubbed it. Even director Fritz Lang distanced himself from script and end product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That    s an interesting comparison .
Metropolis consists of a lot of bombastic visuals that were created using huge models , huge numbers of shaved extras , painstaking stop motion animation , etc .
But the story and the characters are so poor that the whole thing is not believable and a strain on the viewer .
It was torn to shreds by critics back then .
Viewers snubbed it .
Even director Fritz Lang distanced himself from script and end product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That’s an interesting comparison.
Metropolis consists of a lot of bombastic visuals that were created using huge models, huge numbers of shaved extras, painstaking stop motion animation, etc.
But the story and the characters are so poor that the whole thing is not believable and a strain on the viewer.
It was torn to shreds by critics back then.
Viewers snubbed it.
Even director Fritz Lang distanced himself from script and end product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515290</id>
	<title>2D is stupid anyway</title>
	<author>gtbritishskull</author>
	<datestamp>1268820300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing wrong with books.  Our brain fills in the images.  Been doing it for eons with other types of writing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is an entire art of photographic/cinematographic composition that relates to how lines, shapes and form relate to the frame.</p></div><p>To paraphrase.... "Back in my day, we used lines, shapes and form to relate to the frame."</p><p>No new media is used to its full potential when it first comes out.  But, art comes out of every media.  I am sure there will be a lot of crappy 3D films.  But there will also be some amazing ones as talented people get used to the new technology.</p><p>Sorry Grandpa... I will get off your lawn now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing wrong with books .
Our brain fills in the images .
Been doing it for eons with other types of writing.There is an entire art of photographic/cinematographic composition that relates to how lines , shapes and form relate to the frame.To paraphrase.... " Back in my day , we used lines , shapes and form to relate to the frame .
" No new media is used to its full potential when it first comes out .
But , art comes out of every media .
I am sure there will be a lot of crappy 3D films .
But there will also be some amazing ones as talented people get used to the new technology.Sorry Grandpa... I will get off your lawn now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing wrong with books.
Our brain fills in the images.
Been doing it for eons with other types of writing.There is an entire art of photographic/cinematographic composition that relates to how lines, shapes and form relate to the frame.To paraphrase.... "Back in my day, we used lines, shapes and form to relate to the frame.
"No new media is used to its full potential when it first comes out.
But, art comes out of every media.
I am sure there will be a lot of crappy 3D films.
But there will also be some amazing ones as talented people get used to the new technology.Sorry Grandpa... I will get off your lawn now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512468</id>
	<title>At least they're trying to compete with piracy...</title>
	<author>lolocaust</author>
	<datestamp>1268853540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whenever I see ads for 3D films (especially re-releases of 2d films), I do shake my head a little, but I also like the fact that the industry are finding some way to provide something that can't be found at home. And also I noticed a recent film ad (Nanny McPhee, I think) mentioned that the film will be launched in 15 countries simultaneously, which is one of the reasons people prefer to just pirate. Problem is, however, we will all have our own stereoscopic television sets soon enough..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever I see ads for 3D films ( especially re-releases of 2d films ) , I do shake my head a little , but I also like the fact that the industry are finding some way to provide something that ca n't be found at home .
And also I noticed a recent film ad ( Nanny McPhee , I think ) mentioned that the film will be launched in 15 countries simultaneously , which is one of the reasons people prefer to just pirate .
Problem is , however , we will all have our own stereoscopic television sets soon enough. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever I see ads for 3D films (especially re-releases of 2d films), I do shake my head a little, but I also like the fact that the industry are finding some way to provide something that can't be found at home.
And also I noticed a recent film ad (Nanny McPhee, I think) mentioned that the film will be launched in 15 countries simultaneously, which is one of the reasons people prefer to just pirate.
Problem is, however, we will all have our own stereoscopic television sets soon enough..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31520676</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Yes</title>
	<author>One Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268913240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They put the price up around November to &pound;13.50 (still roughly the price of two cinema tickets as they put those prices up too) a month. And they charge you a stipend on top if you want to see 3D performances. I haven't been to a 3D performance since they introduced the stipend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They put the price up around November to   13.50 ( still roughly the price of two cinema tickets as they put those prices up too ) a month .
And they charge you a stipend on top if you want to see 3D performances .
I have n't been to a 3D performance since they introduced the stipend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They put the price up around November to £13.50 (still roughly the price of two cinema tickets as they put those prices up too) a month.
And they charge you a stipend on top if you want to see 3D performances.
I haven't been to a 3D performance since they introduced the stipend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512986</id>
	<title>Re:Where 3D works</title>
	<author>Kenja</author>
	<datestamp>1268855160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The crazy part is that there are a lot of old movies with proper 3D (shot with two cameras). Think I have a copy of the 1950's Cat Woman of the Moon in 3D around here someplace.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The crazy part is that there are a lot of old movies with proper 3D ( shot with two cameras ) .
Think I have a copy of the 1950 's Cat Woman of the Moon in 3D around here someplace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The crazy part is that there are a lot of old movies with proper 3D (shot with two cameras).
Think I have a copy of the 1950's Cat Woman of the Moon in 3D around here someplace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516760</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar pains</title>
	<author>lolocaust</author>
	<datestamp>1268827260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fair enough, I guess I can only say with 100\% certainty that the Imax cinema in Waterloo, London uses linear polarization. I've recently done some work on various stereoscopic viewing methods, so I am very confident that I can tell different types apart.<br> <br>

And you're right, I noticed especially on scenes where the objects were meant to be "in front" of the screen, things did seem pretty disorientating. Luckily, I had a decent seat, so it wasn't all that bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair enough , I guess I can only say with 100 \ % certainty that the Imax cinema in Waterloo , London uses linear polarization .
I 've recently done some work on various stereoscopic viewing methods , so I am very confident that I can tell different types apart .
And you 're right , I noticed especially on scenes where the objects were meant to be " in front " of the screen , things did seem pretty disorientating .
Luckily , I had a decent seat , so it was n't all that bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair enough, I guess I can only say with 100\% certainty that the Imax cinema in Waterloo, London uses linear polarization.
I've recently done some work on various stereoscopic viewing methods, so I am very confident that I can tell different types apart.
And you're right, I noticed especially on scenes where the objects were meant to be "in front" of the screen, things did seem pretty disorientating.
Luckily, I had a decent seat, so it wasn't all that bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514570</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Yes</title>
	<author>Carrot007</author>
	<datestamp>1268817720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; For &pound;11.99 a month I can see as many movies as I want. www.cineworld.co.uk If I see a movie a week, thats pretty cheap.</p><p>Still about 50\% above what I would deem reasonable.</p><p>Well unless they want to give a quality experience (I experienced the first 40 mins of a film in the wrong aspect ratio once, no one else seemed to notice but they are probably the same goons that stretch 4:3 to 16:9 on thier TVs)</p><p>And sell me food/drink at a reasonable price.</p><p>And beer too, that always used to be a nice part of going to a cinema, the bar. (and as long as they are not up to club prices I don't mind paying above average pub prices)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; For   11.99 a month I can see as many movies as I want .
www.cineworld.co.uk If I see a movie a week , thats pretty cheap.Still about 50 \ % above what I would deem reasonable.Well unless they want to give a quality experience ( I experienced the first 40 mins of a film in the wrong aspect ratio once , no one else seemed to notice but they are probably the same goons that stretch 4 : 3 to 16 : 9 on thier TVs ) And sell me food/drink at a reasonable price.And beer too , that always used to be a nice part of going to a cinema , the bar .
( and as long as they are not up to club prices I do n't mind paying above average pub prices )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; For £11.99 a month I can see as many movies as I want.
www.cineworld.co.uk If I see a movie a week, thats pretty cheap.Still about 50\% above what I would deem reasonable.Well unless they want to give a quality experience (I experienced the first 40 mins of a film in the wrong aspect ratio once, no one else seemed to notice but they are probably the same goons that stretch 4:3 to 16:9 on thier TVs)And sell me food/drink at a reasonable price.And beer too, that always used to be a nice part of going to a cinema, the bar.
(and as long as they are not up to club prices I don't mind paying above average pub prices)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512192</id>
	<title>And they want to do this to our TV's as well!</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1268852820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And they want to do this to our TV's as well!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And they want to do this to our TV 's as well !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they want to do this to our TV's as well!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516942</id>
	<title>Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers</title>
	<author>Endophage</author>
	<datestamp>1268828640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't have quite such a severe problem but my left eye is so screwed up (I'm severely long sighted with a double squint and double astigmatism) that even with glasses it can't focus on anything so I end up seeing kind of half 3D.  It just vaguely looks like there are 2 copies of everything with one floating a couple of feet infront of the screen but still appearing flat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have quite such a severe problem but my left eye is so screwed up ( I 'm severely long sighted with a double squint and double astigmatism ) that even with glasses it ca n't focus on anything so I end up seeing kind of half 3D .
It just vaguely looks like there are 2 copies of everything with one floating a couple of feet infront of the screen but still appearing flat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have quite such a severe problem but my left eye is so screwed up (I'm severely long sighted with a double squint and double astigmatism) that even with glasses it can't focus on anything so I end up seeing kind of half 3D.
It just vaguely looks like there are 2 copies of everything with one floating a couple of feet infront of the screen but still appearing flat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512750</id>
	<title>Re:Own them all!</title>
	<author>Plastic Pencil</author>
	<datestamp>1268854320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>YOU FORGOT:
<br>
<br>
Blade Runner U.S. theatrical version 3D
<br>
Blade Runner Criterion Edition 3D
<br>
Blade Runner U.S. broadcast version 3D
<br>
Blade Runner Director's Cut 3D
<br>
Blade Runner 25th Anniversary Edition 3D
<br>
Blade Runner Ultimate Collector's Edition 3D
<br>
<br>
Because everyone has a preference...</htmltext>
<tokenext>YOU FORGOT : Blade Runner U.S. theatrical version 3D Blade Runner Criterion Edition 3D Blade Runner U.S. broadcast version 3D Blade Runner Director 's Cut 3D Blade Runner 25th Anniversary Edition 3D Blade Runner Ultimate Collector 's Edition 3D Because everyone has a preference.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YOU FORGOT:


Blade Runner U.S. theatrical version 3D

Blade Runner Criterion Edition 3D

Blade Runner U.S. broadcast version 3D

Blade Runner Director's Cut 3D

Blade Runner 25th Anniversary Edition 3D

Blade Runner Ultimate Collector's Edition 3D


Because everyone has a preference...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517550</id>
	<title>Not a scam</title>
	<author>maharvey</author>
	<datestamp>1268833140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is it a scam to give paying customers what they want? This is just capitalism at work. If customers don't like the latest crop 3D movies they won't pay to see them, and the fad will die quickly. If they do like it enough to pay $10+ a ticket, then what is the complaint?

</p><p>One can grouse about poor quality and cheap conversions, but right now 3D entertainment is in its infancy. It's little more than a novelty. But hey, isn't novelty and vapid thrills what movies are all about? It's not like this is something even remotely important. Besides if this is successful the technology will improve, the quality will improve, and the infrastructure will be upgraded.

</p><p>It's no different than color movies. If people want to see an old B&amp;W movie in color, why not colorize it? If they want to see Titanic in 3D who cares? The original is still there for purists.

</p><p>Tech is always this way: you live with half-baked goods for years before the technology matures. Some people (early adopters) pay for it, others stay away until later. The Apple II was a scam by this logic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is it a scam to give paying customers what they want ?
This is just capitalism at work .
If customers do n't like the latest crop 3D movies they wo n't pay to see them , and the fad will die quickly .
If they do like it enough to pay $ 10 + a ticket , then what is the complaint ?
One can grouse about poor quality and cheap conversions , but right now 3D entertainment is in its infancy .
It 's little more than a novelty .
But hey , is n't novelty and vapid thrills what movies are all about ?
It 's not like this is something even remotely important .
Besides if this is successful the technology will improve , the quality will improve , and the infrastructure will be upgraded .
It 's no different than color movies .
If people want to see an old B&amp;W movie in color , why not colorize it ?
If they want to see Titanic in 3D who cares ?
The original is still there for purists .
Tech is always this way : you live with half-baked goods for years before the technology matures .
Some people ( early adopters ) pay for it , others stay away until later .
The Apple II was a scam by this logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is it a scam to give paying customers what they want?
This is just capitalism at work.
If customers don't like the latest crop 3D movies they won't pay to see them, and the fad will die quickly.
If they do like it enough to pay $10+ a ticket, then what is the complaint?
One can grouse about poor quality and cheap conversions, but right now 3D entertainment is in its infancy.
It's little more than a novelty.
But hey, isn't novelty and vapid thrills what movies are all about?
It's not like this is something even remotely important.
Besides if this is successful the technology will improve, the quality will improve, and the infrastructure will be upgraded.
It's no different than color movies.
If people want to see an old B&amp;W movie in color, why not colorize it?
If they want to see Titanic in 3D who cares?
The original is still there for purists.
Tech is always this way: you live with half-baked goods for years before the technology matures.
Some people (early adopters) pay for it, others stay away until later.
The Apple II was a scam by this logic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514932</id>
	<title>Re:The hidden perk of 3D...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268819100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not to argue about the quality of film making but if you can't tell the difference between native HD content and a DVD then your either lying or have a serious eye condition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not to argue about the quality of film making but if you ca n't tell the difference between native HD content and a DVD then your either lying or have a serious eye condition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not to argue about the quality of film making but if you can't tell the difference between native HD content and a DVD then your either lying or have a serious eye condition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516264</id>
	<title>If you have headaches or can't see 3D...</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1268824500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... It is probably means vision problems: <a href="http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=253449" title="connectmidmichigan.com">http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=253449</a> [connectmidmichigan.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... It is probably means vision problems : http : //www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx ? id = 253449 [ connectmidmichigan.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... It is probably means vision problems: http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=253449 [connectmidmichigan.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513714</id>
	<title>Re:Own them all!</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1268857620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sir, you are aware that this film is shown is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCq\_nzlou0Q" title="youtube.com">Feel-Around?</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sir , you are aware that this film is shown is Feel-Around ?
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sir, you are aware that this film is shown is Feel-Around?
[youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268853000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point of 3D is to provide an experience you can't get at home.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Theaters have been dropping in popularity as DVD sales go up and home theater systems get better -- 3D is trying to pull viewers back to the theater.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of 3D is to provide an experience you ca n't get at home .
Nothing more , nothing less .
Theaters have been dropping in popularity as DVD sales go up and home theater systems get better -- 3D is trying to pull viewers back to the theater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of 3D is to provide an experience you can't get at home.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Theaters have been dropping in popularity as DVD sales go up and home theater systems get better -- 3D is trying to pull viewers back to the theater.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513396</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on Which 3D Tech...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268856600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The IMAX3D is pure marketing. The technology used is not standardized. In some locations they use linear polarization, in others they use circular polarization, and in some places they even use LCD shutter glasses.</p><p>RealD always uses circular polarization, although the glasses polarization is actually slightly elliptical. If you tilt you head while wearing them the brightness of the film can vary some, but ghosting does not occur. Of course, tilting your head by too much will destroy the image. (Thing about watching the move with your head at a 90 degree angle to the horizon. The images would then appear to overlap "vertically" rather than horizontally, and since they don't when overlapped) like that...)</p><p>Dolby 3D does not use the old 2 color glasses trick, but does use a related trick, where there are two red wavelengths used, two blue wavelengths used, and 2 green wavelengths used. One set of RGB wavelengths is intended for each eye, and the glasses contain filters so only the correct light for each eye enters. This can cause some issues with color perception, as at most one of those could be tuned to the optimal wavelengths for each of the cones in the eye. Further the fact that the different eyes are seeing different wavelengths can result in different perceptions of brightness of two "equal" reds for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The IMAX3D is pure marketing .
The technology used is not standardized .
In some locations they use linear polarization , in others they use circular polarization , and in some places they even use LCD shutter glasses.RealD always uses circular polarization , although the glasses polarization is actually slightly elliptical .
If you tilt you head while wearing them the brightness of the film can vary some , but ghosting does not occur .
Of course , tilting your head by too much will destroy the image .
( Thing about watching the move with your head at a 90 degree angle to the horizon .
The images would then appear to overlap " vertically " rather than horizontally , and since they do n't when overlapped ) like that... ) Dolby 3D does not use the old 2 color glasses trick , but does use a related trick , where there are two red wavelengths used , two blue wavelengths used , and 2 green wavelengths used .
One set of RGB wavelengths is intended for each eye , and the glasses contain filters so only the correct light for each eye enters .
This can cause some issues with color perception , as at most one of those could be tuned to the optimal wavelengths for each of the cones in the eye .
Further the fact that the different eyes are seeing different wavelengths can result in different perceptions of brightness of two " equal " reds for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IMAX3D is pure marketing.
The technology used is not standardized.
In some locations they use linear polarization, in others they use circular polarization, and in some places they even use LCD shutter glasses.RealD always uses circular polarization, although the glasses polarization is actually slightly elliptical.
If you tilt you head while wearing them the brightness of the film can vary some, but ghosting does not occur.
Of course, tilting your head by too much will destroy the image.
(Thing about watching the move with your head at a 90 degree angle to the horizon.
The images would then appear to overlap "vertically" rather than horizontally, and since they don't when overlapped) like that...)Dolby 3D does not use the old 2 color glasses trick, but does use a related trick, where there are two red wavelengths used, two blue wavelengths used, and 2 green wavelengths used.
One set of RGB wavelengths is intended for each eye, and the glasses contain filters so only the correct light for each eye enters.
This can cause some issues with color perception, as at most one of those could be tuned to the optimal wavelengths for each of the cones in the eye.
Further the fact that the different eyes are seeing different wavelengths can result in different perceptions of brightness of two "equal" reds for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512392</id>
	<title>Some implementations are better than others</title>
	<author>marcansoft</author>
	<datestamp>1268853360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I first watched Avatar on a theatre equipped with XpanD 3D. I don't know if it was the projector, the glasses, or a combination, but the colors with the glasses on looked like those produced by a <i>really bad</i> LCD monitor, only less bright. Everything was greenish, blacks were badly crushed, and the heavy shutter glasses really hurt the immersion. I kept taking them off in some scenes in order to be able to see darker areas!</p><p>I rewatched it on a theatre that used RealD 3D, and the experience was much better. It wasn't perfect (some judder), but at least it wasn't worse than consumer gear. If there's one thing I expect when going to the cinema it's at least reasonable display standards and calibration - otherwise I'd much rather just torrent it and watch it in the comfort of my house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I first watched Avatar on a theatre equipped with XpanD 3D .
I do n't know if it was the projector , the glasses , or a combination , but the colors with the glasses on looked like those produced by a really bad LCD monitor , only less bright .
Everything was greenish , blacks were badly crushed , and the heavy shutter glasses really hurt the immersion .
I kept taking them off in some scenes in order to be able to see darker areas ! I rewatched it on a theatre that used RealD 3D , and the experience was much better .
It was n't perfect ( some judder ) , but at least it was n't worse than consumer gear .
If there 's one thing I expect when going to the cinema it 's at least reasonable display standards and calibration - otherwise I 'd much rather just torrent it and watch it in the comfort of my house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I first watched Avatar on a theatre equipped with XpanD 3D.
I don't know if it was the projector, the glasses, or a combination, but the colors with the glasses on looked like those produced by a really bad LCD monitor, only less bright.
Everything was greenish, blacks were badly crushed, and the heavy shutter glasses really hurt the immersion.
I kept taking them off in some scenes in order to be able to see darker areas!I rewatched it on a theatre that used RealD 3D, and the experience was much better.
It wasn't perfect (some judder), but at least it wasn't worse than consumer gear.
If there's one thing I expect when going to the cinema it's at least reasonable display standards and calibration - otherwise I'd much rather just torrent it and watch it in the comfort of my house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108</id>
	<title>Well, Yes</title>
	<author>spribyl</author>
	<datestamp>1268852580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D does not make a bad script/actor/director/... better.<br>Frankly, 3D has nothing to do with story telling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D does not make a bad script/actor/director/... better.Frankly , 3D has nothing to do with story telling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D does not make a bad script/actor/director/... better.Frankly, 3D has nothing to do with story telling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518088</id>
	<title>Re:but 3D home theater is next.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1268837640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a treadmill that the movie theaters can't get ahead on. Instead of trying to stay on the digital advancement treadmill, they should be marketing their tradition and atmosphere etc</p></div><p>That's a nice thought, but we live in an age where <em>people answer their phone while watching a movie.</em> I'd be all for a cinema that disciplined or ejected these people for disturbing other patrons. Unfortunately, those people seem to be in the majority now, so by pissing off the cellphone talkers, they would be eliminating their major source of income. It seems like an intractable problem, unless etiquette somehow becomes trendy all of a sudden.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a treadmill that the movie theaters ca n't get ahead on .
Instead of trying to stay on the digital advancement treadmill , they should be marketing their tradition and atmosphere etcThat 's a nice thought , but we live in an age where people answer their phone while watching a movie .
I 'd be all for a cinema that disciplined or ejected these people for disturbing other patrons .
Unfortunately , those people seem to be in the majority now , so by pissing off the cellphone talkers , they would be eliminating their major source of income .
It seems like an intractable problem , unless etiquette somehow becomes trendy all of a sudden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a treadmill that the movie theaters can't get ahead on.
Instead of trying to stay on the digital advancement treadmill, they should be marketing their tradition and atmosphere etcThat's a nice thought, but we live in an age where people answer their phone while watching a movie.
I'd be all for a cinema that disciplined or ejected these people for disturbing other patrons.
Unfortunately, those people seem to be in the majority now, so by pissing off the cellphone talkers, they would be eliminating their major source of income.
It seems like an intractable problem, unless etiquette somehow becomes trendy all of a sudden.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512714</id>
	<title>Re:More headaches?</title>
	<author>dougisfunny</author>
	<datestamp>1268854200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Profitable, not watchable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Profitable , not watchable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Profitable, not watchable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512254</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31521946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31521126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31520676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31521790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31520128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31520784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31528176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31522962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31532932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31523310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31533230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31522282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31519002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1736242_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31521946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31519978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31528176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31522282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513970
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512496
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513174
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514570
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31520676
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515642
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512746
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512586
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514960
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31533230
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515444
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513254
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513688
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31520784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31520128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31522962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31523310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31519002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31521790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31518228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31513628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1736242.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512644
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514810
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515610
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515474
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31532932
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31521126
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515542
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31517082
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31514774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31516264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31515656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1736242.31512680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
