Is it pedantic to insist that films have been 3D all along, and the new hype is really about 4D?
Traditional film = width + height + time.
"3D" film = width + height + time + depth.
HEY MAN -- That's 4 D's!
Posted Sep 15, 2010, 6:46 PM UTC
312
LOL! Yeah, see if there's a patent for 4D TV and hire some lawyers!
1
Childish and " "
1
" " ?
1
Excuse my terrible terrible attempt at writing. Childish and pedantic.
1
You forgot the fifth "D"
"D"elicious snacks at the snack bar!
:3
1
Does traditional film really have "Time"? If you freeze on one frame, you have width + height, the time comes from watching it through.
1
It's not a film if you freeze on one frame and don't watch it all the way through. It's a photograph!
1
$deity help us all if Hollywood ever discovers fractals.
1
Well, technically all movies work in 3 dimensions (light traveling from the screen to your eyes through space) the only difference with '3d' movies is the coloring or polarization of the light to make different images appear in each eye creating an illusion of depth.
1
You are wrong in that the vernacular for dimensionality only addresses spatial dimensions. In fact, the distinctions totally appropriate, even in terms of physics, since spatial dimensions have properties that make them absolutely different in kind from spatial dimensions.
1
If by that last "spatial" you meant "temporal," I would completely buy that argument.
Pedants unite!
1
It's probably better to term it stereo vision as it's one image for each eye in the same way that spatial depth is achieved for stereo audio .