I think Avatar is so tightly ingrained with this discussion is because it’s the best example of a successful 3D movie. It did well in 3D, and (for the most part) wasn’t the same without 3D. People were willing to pay the extra money for the glbumes, and to see it in 3D.

Avatar is a perfect example why 3D isn’t taken seriously as well, since it’s used to enhance movies in the totally wrong way.

I think 3D broadcast television will be more likely to be a game changer compared to Movies, since the glbumesless technology is there, and the entry cost isn’t significant when you concider that a television is a major purchase that should be calculated evenly over the cost of a long period of time.

To bring this full circle back to the original point:

Anaglyph Stereoscopy hasn’t held back the development of 3D cinema, it provided a jumping point for newer technologies, no first generation product is perfect, and when technology is in it’s infancy there is usually little development. The sheer lack of technological advancement in the field is to blame more than anything.

There have likely been more major advancements in film in the last two and a half decades than there has been in the time since “talkies”. I base that one no facts other than now that film _is_ digital, advancement is based on computer technology, not silver technology. We are just now getting around to the concept of 3D and how we can use our technology to improve it.

Oh, and that film _is_ digital comment: Yes i am the grand arbiter of silver nitride technology, and yes i understand the difference between film and digital, i don’t mean the fact that they are using some sort of digital film, but that films are being made entirely digital, as opposed to on film and then edited digitally.

lol, internet, serious business