3D Geek V 3D Consumer, A New Look at the Passive Vs Active 3D TV Debate

Once 3D was a novelty act in cinemas. Now it's a rapidly developing technology that helps movie directors and progressive TV channels find new and better ways to help you feel part of the action.

Early 3D technology made it possible for manufacturers such as Samsung, Sony and Panasonic to introduce 3D TV sets into homes. They applied the early-adopter rule of money being no object and technical specification being everything. So they developed the geektastic active 3D technology systems that require shutter glasses with powered lenses and transmitter mechanisms to sync the tech-heavy 3D glasses to the display unit.

Active-shutter glasses are actually small LCD screens that alternately dim the left and right lenses at speeds faster than the human eye can detect. They use an infrared signal emitter in the TV to ensure each pair of synched 3D glasses dims each of its lenses at the appropriate moment. Each eye's glass contains a layer, which flickers between dark or transparent when voltage is applied. The timing signal allows the glasses to synchronize together with the refresh rate of anything between 100Hz and 240Hz.

Active-shutter 3D glasses, thanks to the technology involved are relatively expensive. So much so that manufacturers don't often include them with active 3D TV sets - you have to buy them at a substantial additional cost. Besides the cost of the glasses - anything from £50 - £150 per pair, you also have to stump up for the batteries they need to keep them running. It's these batteries that also give active 3D glasses a bit of a weight problem that can cause discomfort during full-length feature films. An issue that becomes even more problematical if you already wear prescription glasses.

The final difficulty with active 3D glasses is that no two systems use the same signal emitter set-up: you can only use them on your own system and will have to wait for the development of universal active 3D glasses to head round to your pals to watch the football in 3D.

Fortunately a solution, in the form of passive 3D systems, arrived on the fast developing 3D TV scene.

As other TV manufacturers such as LG, Philips, Toshiba, Vizio, Cello, Manta, Bush and Finlux began to develop 3D TV systems aimed at mainstream consumers, they opted for passive 3D glasses technology. Making passive 3D glasses is no more complicate than making a pair of standard sunglasses. Only the specially designed polarized lenses are different.

When you watch a 3D film and the cinema or on a passive 3D TV, the polarised lenses in the passive 3D glasses simply block different kinds of light from each eye to create that immersive illusion of depth inside the mind of the viewer. The circular polarised lenses are set at angles that match a combined image on the screen. The glasses simply decode the images with any need for those flickering shutters that can cause headaches on active 3D glasses. What's more, you don't ever have to replace any batteries or miss out on the football in 3D because they are flat. So why doesn't everybody see passive 3D glasses as sounds like the perfect 3D solution?

The makers and enthusiastic fans of active 3D systems often refer to the fact that technically passive 3D glasses do not provide a true HD experience on 3D TVs. With passive 3D, the viewer sees 540 lines of resolution to each eye, or half 1080p (provided the source is 1080p). So, theoretically the picture will have less depth and quality than one of 1080p - the norm for active 3D systems. However, active 3D supporters claim that this difference is only noticeable a couple feet from the TV. As nobody buys a large screen TV to use as a laptop the issue seems to be nothing more than manufacturer spin.

To prove the point, LG has recently won ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority that allows them to state that the passive 3D glasses experience is a full HD experience. Perhaps that is why Panasonic and Sony have both recently began making passive 3D systems?

The real difference lies not in whether active 3D glasses are too heavy, cause dizziness and headaches, or passive 3D glasses offer a less immersive experience cheap as chips experience: real difference lies in the eye and the mind of the beholder.

Each of us experiences 3D in a way that is unique to our own viewing physiology. Our eyes, our experiences and our preferences, shape the way we see things. The fact is, we simply do not see exactly the same things as people sitting right next to us. Moreover, 3D is a depth-perception illusion created in our mind's unique eye. While technical facts and research can advance all manner of claims, it is only you who can decide what rocks your 3D world.

At a geek v consumer level, each of us is either the kind of avid technology buff that wanted to be the first to experience 3D TV in the home or someone who was always going to wait until the technology developed to a point where updating the old TV with a state of the art but relatively inexpensive passive 3D TV seems like a no brainer. Especially when you consider that you are likely to be watching a mixture of 2D (60%) and 3D (40%) programs on your 3D TV.

Even if you adopt a try before you buy approach, evaluating passive or active 3D TVs is fraught with difficulties. For one thing, it is impossible to experience what it is like to live with heavy active 3D glasses unless you spend hours in the showroom watching a film. Equally, the quality of passive 3D glasses is enough to make anyone think twice about making an impulse purchase.

May we suggest a solution?

Perhaps before you risk investing in a prohibitively expensive active 3D system because of the perceived picture quality or dismiss the very idea of a passive 3d system because of the poor quality passive 3D glasses, you should take the opportunity to experience the outstanding passive 3D experience delivered by Designer 3D glasses by Oskav.

All our wayfarer-style glasses are made to the same exacting standards as designer sunglasses. Our lenses are made to a particular specification that ensures a high definition 3D experience and lasting durability. Our collection of designer finishes is simply without equal in passive 3D glasses. So what have you go to loose? From just £19.99 you could get the LG, Philips, Toshiba or Panasonic passive 3D TV test drive of a lifetime and in the process get a pair of designer 3D glasses that also allow you to go to see any 3D film in style. Put the 3D geek v 3D consumer debate behind you in a pair of designer 3D glasses by Oskav. Buy designer 3D glasses by Oskav online at oskav.com. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

What Are the Best Film Websites to Stream and Rent From?

There are 3 main websites at the moment offering a rental/streaming service for movies and TV shows online, they are LoveFilm, Blink Box and Netflix. All three websites have their own take on the market which makes them able to attract vast amounts of new subscribers.

First of all I will examine LoveFilm.
In January of 2012, LoveFilm made an announcement that it had reached a huge two million subscribers! It says on their website that they have over 70,000 titles, and over 4 million DVD, Bluray or Games rentals per month across five countries. Through a series of large business deals the company has, in just a few short years, become arguably the leader in the online DVD rental and streaming market in both the UK and across Europe.

There are various sign up options with Lovefilm, involving a postal only rental option, online only option, and combinations of them both. This gives Lovefilm a good edge in the market as it has various different subscription options to suit buyers needs and make it the best film website for certain movie watchers.

Next up on my examination table is Blink Box
Blinkbox has near to 3 million users a month, which puts it above most of its competition. Blinkbox is a video-on-demand (VoD) website that is based in the UK and allows users to watch over 10,000 full length premium movies and TV shows online through purchase or rental options. The advantage for BlinkBox is that there is no subscription and it is essentially a "pay as you go" system, allowing users to pay to watch whenever they feel like it.

It also has quite a foothold in the smart tv market, expanding from sole PC/Laptop usage to the living room movie experience. For those who enjoy that experience they would probably consider BlinkBox the best movie website.

Finally I Will Talk about Netflix
Netflix is originally an An American company that due to its success, expanded worldwide. In 2009 Netflix was offering a collection of 100,000 titles on DVD and had over 10 million subscribers throughout the globe. Netflix has delivered over a billion DVDs to customers in it's operation. In 2011, Netflix announced 23.6 million subscribers in the United States and over 26 million worldwide. This accounts to a huge revenue (around $1.5 billion).

The shear amount of titles available through Netflix gives it a major advantage for the movie lover, making it by far the best film website for amount of titles available,

Which provider you choose is up to you, for more help on the subject check my link at the bottom for a site that compares the three, maybe this will help you decide once and for all which is the best film website! Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

The Business of Movie Theaters: Films or Food?

Not so long ago people went to the movies to, well, see the movie. Now it's almost as if the movie has become secondary to the food and arcade games that most theaters have on offer. Montreal, as was the case in most cities, had its fair share of movie theaters - we didn't call them cinemas, to us they were movie theaters, plain and simple - both in the downtown core and in the suburbs.

These were often elaborately designed single-screen theaters showing films every night and offered matinees on the weekends and during school holidays. I recall the price being 75 cents before seven o'clock at which time the cost of admission shot up to a whopping $1.25! For that princely sum movie patrons were treated to a cartoon - usually a Blake Edwards'Pink Panther short which worked well in Montreal as it could be used in both French and English theaters given the lack of dialogue - in addition to the main feature.

But the price is not the issue; the price of everything has gone up over time. What has changed is the focus from movie house to all round food and entertainment center. Not all that long ago your admission fee got you into the theater to see the movie. There were, of course, snack bars where you could buy soft drinks, popcorn, candies and chips. But these were just for convenience because many people, perhaps most, brought their own snacks to the movie. I'm not talking about smuggling in contraband Twizzlers or Reese's Pieces, sneaking past ushers who look like they want to pat down movie goers. The goodies people brought to the theater were most welcome; after all they had paid their admission. It was a movie theater, not a restaurant - it was a Bring Your Own Food establishment

Movie goers would bring in, openly and honestly, snack items such as a box of a dozen Dunkin' Donuts and Dairy Queen milkshakes. Others brought submarine sandwiches or even hamburgers. Some folks even made special snacks at home and, along with a thermos of coffee settled in to enjoy the movie and munch on a ham on rye.

These days the film is almost an afterthought; once you get past the vast array of food on offer at exorbitant prices and run the gamut of the umpteen video games in the lobby, you can finally settle down to watch the feature.

The Movie business has changed. Long gone are the days when movie theaters were in the business of selling admission to films and providing convenience snack bar counters, but were BYOF! Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

"On The Road" - An Accurate Portrayal of Jack Kerouac's Cult Classic Novel

The idea of transforming Jack Kerouac's cult classic novel, "On the Road," into a movie is as old as the novel itself. Despite attempts by Jack Kerouac decades ago, the idea has not gained traction until recently. Even Francis Ford Coppola, having acquired the rights in 1979, was unable to bring the project to fruition. The movie "On the Road" was finally made as the result of the combined efforts of Walter Salles of "The Motorcycle Diaries" fame and five film production companies from four different countries.

The movie narrates Jack Kerouac's cross-country journey through America in the late 1940s through the voice of the lead character, his alter-ego Sal Paradise (Sam Riley). A writer struggling to discover his niche, Sal Paradise meets his biggest inspiration, Dean Moriarty (Garrettt Hedlund), through his writer friend Carlo Max (Tom Sturridge). Dean's character is based on Jack Kerouac's real-life interactions with Nick Cassady. Dean can only be described as the perfect hobo. In a country obsessed with conformism, he is the free-spirited rebel who inspires Sal to find out what he truly desires to do in life.

Dean's first appearance in the movie involves answering the door butt naked. The audience is introduced to his sixteen-year-old wife Marylou (Kristen Stewart) in the same scene. She too is, unsurprisingly, naked. This comes as a bit of shock for those who are used to seeing Kristen as the virginal girl in the "Twilight" series. Marylou's fiery and free-spirited character comes as an even bigger surprise for those who imagined Kristen would never escape Bella's repressed and reticent characterization in the "Twilight" series.

What follows is a picturesque and handsomely shot journey all over America with lots of smoking, drinking, partying, sex, drugs, introspection, and discussions. A large number of family members, friends, and new acquaintances come and go, and each new character helps Sal understand himself, his friends, and his life better.

The director deserves credit for skilfully bringing in characters like Jane (Amy Adams), Ed Dunkel (Danny Morgan), Terry (Alice Braga), Galatea Dunkel (Elisabeth Moss), Camille (Kirsten Dunst), and Old Bull Lee (Viggo Mortensen) without leaving the audience confused. The characters' exit may seem abrupt but it only serves to heighten the focus on the trio of Sal, Dean, and Marylou.

Director Walter Salles prepared the cast for the movie by conducting a three-week boot camp in Montreal on the Beat Generation. The cast enjoyed access to literature related to the Beat Generation, Kerouac's biographer Gerald Nicosia, and interviews with persons who served as inspiration for the characters in the novel.

The director also provided Kristen with access to a 1978 audio interview with Lu Anne Henderson, Nick Cassady's wife and inspiration for Marylou's character in the book. This seems to have helped her get under the character's skin effectively. She also enjoyed long discussions with Henderson's daughter, helping her understand Lu Anne's personality. Kristen's multiple scenes involving physical intimacy with Sal and Dean, including a now-famous scene in a moving car, although slightly surprising, do not seem gratuitous. Overall, Kristen does an admirable job of portraying feisty Marylou as a person who is a few decades ahead of her time.

The movie does not meander too far from the book, and this creates a feeling that the director is unnecessarily emphasizing a single message instead of moving on. However, those who have read the book will agree that the entire novel is, more or less, about the angst of youngsters of the Beat Generation trying to find their life destinies.

By the end of the movie, one cannot but help notice how the three characters have been etched neatly. Sal is the confused one; Dean is the one who thinks he knows what he wants; while Marylou is the one who understands how the search for one's destiny is an endless exercise.

As the movie progresses, Sal becomes more and more assured of himself and finds himself slowly moving independently of his hero, Dean, who continues to live his life king-sized without any desire to change. Sal discovers his wild side and ends up outgrowing that phase to lead a normal life, something Marylou predicted.

Kristen joined the cast of "On the Road" without any screen testing. Apparently, Walter Salles was impressed by her performance in "Into The Wild" and chose her without any misgivings. The movie's cast, Kristen included, produced strong performances that justify the director's faith and laborious preparations, including a road trip that retraced Jack Kerouac's original journey. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

Private Practice, The Attempt To Defeat Grey's Anatomy

"Private Practice" enters the world of medical dramas in a way that many people really didn't expect to see a new TV show enter a network. There's plenty of competition with many medical dramas already winning the hearts of viewers around the world which definitely indicates that making this show a success isn't the easiest accomplishment for anyone. Is "Private Practice" going to be the show that's able to defeat the ever-so-popular series of "Grey's Anatomy" on ABC or is it just going to end up being seen as a desperate attempt of a network trying to make their presence known once again?

Kate Walsh stars as Dr. Addison Montgomery who's a genius neonatal surgeon that went to Los Angeles in the search for a new way of life and better opportunities. Immediately upon arrival, she was able to secure a position at the Oceanside Wellness Center where the staff there also plays critical roles in the development of this unique storyline. While doing whatever it takes to save lives, they also have the time to pursue normal lives (if that's what you would honestly call it) that are showcased as well throughout the series of "Private Practice."

There's a great deal of mixed emotions from viewers about Private Practice, ranging from the hatred that they have for this show trying to take over the spotlight that "Grey's Anatomy" was known for holding all the way to how powerful and emotional the storyline is as each episode airs. This is something that you would expect when you hear about any medical-related TV show, because the audiences of these particular shows have been known to be somewhat controversial in their approaches.

One thing that "Private Practice" seems to be good at is making sure that all actors and actresses get their time to shine. The writers have also ensured that the parts aren't the easiest ones to play, which only provides an even greater opportunity for those who took part in the making of "Private Practice." Not only does it challenge their skills by doing this, it keeps the viewers on their toes unable to truly predict what's going to be the next twist in this rather different story.

The ratings that this TV show has received really don't support the idea that it beat "Grey's Anatomy" in its own game, because they were pretty poor when a comparison was made to be honest. However, you still have the loyal "Private Practice" fans that say this is a show that's touched them in ways that no other TV series has done before. As you can see, the truth is rather hard to find and it really depends on who watches it and what their taste is where these types of medical dramas are concerned.

If you take a look at this show from all angles, you can tell it's hard to decide whether or not it's better than "Grey's Anatomy." However, both shows seem to have their own loyal fans. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

Movie Review: Prometheus (2012)

Director Ridley Scott originally intended on creating a prequel to his film Alien, but when the script writing began, he realized the wealth of material presented warranted its own separate tale (still set in the same universe, however). Such an undertaking led to copious speculation and extremely high expectations from fans for what would eventually become Prometheus. Yet for a film that supposedly merited severance from becoming a direct Alien precursor, the sequence of events in Prometheus are strikingly close to that of Scott's prior effort. In fact, certain segments seem designed specifically as a counterpart to the iconic moments now cemented in cinematic history. Unfortunately, none of these scenes come close to the shocking brilliance of those found in Alien, and while the atmospheric sets, awe-inspiring practical effects, and competent acting are present as they should be, don't expect to find the answers you're looking for - in either the notorious beasts' origins or the countless new questions raised that Scott clearly feels are better left unanswered.

When scientists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover clues on Earth that point to possible "engineers" of mankind, they partner with the powerful Weyland Corporation to launch an expedition into space to make contact with their creators. Governed by Weyland's stern attaché Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) and accompanied by geologists, mercenaries, and the cryptic android David (Michael Fassbender), the crew of the spaceship Prometheus is instructed not to interact with any life forms they may encounter. But once the group reaches their destination of the moon LV-233 and discovers the remains of the beings they set out to find, avoiding exposure becomes impossible. As a deadly infection rapidly spreads and mysterious creatures begin attacking the crew, Elizabeth realizes the horrifying truth and must fight for her own life as well as the very fate of mankind.

The usually capable director has bitten off a bit more than he could chew with Prometheus, which attempts at different moments to be a great many things. Expectations are particularly high, since Scott became famous for Alien in 1979, and this film marks his return to the genre. At the beginning, he ventures into contemplating alternatives to the evolution of humankind with predominantly science-fiction philosophies; in the middle, he explores favorite themes such as the assault on feeble human flesh, the invasion of orifices, and genetic mutation - essential elements of gore for the sake of horror; and toward the conclusion, he opts for action-oriented thrills, packed with impressive CG wizardry and massive destruction. Each shift in genre disorients the story from having a clear vision, and the result is a mess of unresolved ideas and poorly defined beings (especially regarding the capabilities and function of the Engineers, their cargo, and subsequent anomalies).

Brandywine Productions, David Giler and Walter Hill as producers, the title font, notations of "LV_223," talk of company jobs, an android, a monstrous ship full of lonely corridors, hypersleep sickness, hidden agendas, sabotage, H.R. Giger's artwork, and advanced technology all harken the return of a familiar atmosphere. But while the environment, heaped with humidity, high-pitched noises, black muck, and slithery critters, remains reminiscent of Scott's original masterpiece, the plot progresses slowly and formulaically. A crew awakes from hypersleep, a bypass surgery medical pod is inspected, Jackson claims he's there for security purposes and brandishes weaponry, ship and helmet cameras feed crackling, static-filled transmissions, allochthonous walls glisten with slime, and an unsuccessful quarantine allows something to be brought back aboard the command ship. None of it is notably original and the sense of foreboding and foreshadowing is jeeringly blatant. Suspense arrives too late, horror is handled clumsily, and the poignancy of physical pain, understanding the purpose of the structures, and digesting answers to the mysteries of life is sorely neglected. The "space jockey" creation from Alien sparked an interesting question of origin and ancestry, but the solution is mightily underwhelming.

- The Massie Twins (GoneWithTheTwins.com) Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Abraham Lincoln Movie, President Vs. Zombies

Introduction

Karl T. Hirsch and J. Lauren Proctor have come up with a story titled Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies and the movie is directed by a very talented director - Richard Schenkman. An American civil war is going on and suddenly there is an outburst of the zombies and the president has to save the nation from these very dangerous undead creatures.

Plot

The very first scene of the movie is that Abraham Lincoln, a 10 year old lad is watching his father commit suicide because there has been an outbreak of the undead creatures and his father could not handle the situation.Abraham then joins the others in his community to protect the country and get rid of the zombies. This is just a small outbreak of the zombies and the people along with Abraham manage to destroy them all and save the country from further crisis.

The story is then fast forwarded to where Abraham Lincoln is the president and is informed of an outbreak of the undead in a place which is across the enemy lines. In his early days he had seen his parents succumb to these undead creatures, and has an idea what to expect and how to tackle them. He immediately gives orders to the army to go and destroy these furious undead creatures before it's too late.
This is what the Abraham Lincoln movie is all about. The bigger question is that will he be able to survive the siege and bring peace to the country and will he succeed in killing the zombies or will become a prey for them?

Cast

- Bill Oberst Jr. - Abraham Lincoln
- Jason Hughley - Wilson Brown
- Don McGraw - General Stonewall Jackson
- Brennen Harper - the young Lincoln
- Baby Norman - Mary Owens
- Raed Ali - Henry Lee Barton
- Jason Vail - John Wilkinson
- Bernie Ask - Edwin Stanton
- Amy Brice - Blonde Zombie
- Kennedy Brice - Little Zombie girl

Reception

The Abraham Lincoln movie has been made with a nominal budget of $150,000. The film being distributed by The Asylum was released on 29th May, 2012. This is the best Lincoln movie so far. The studio has made similar kind of movies previously also, but this film has raised the bar.

Review

The Asylum is back again with a 90 minutes Abraham Lincoln movie, the so called 'mockbuster'. The last half dozen Asylum films were quite bad and were disastrous at the box office too. The latest Abraham Lincoln movie vs. the Zombies will save and bring back the reputation of the Asylum as it is one of the best Asylum movies so far. We have all seen the previous Lincoln movies and have been disappointed a lot of times but with the release of Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies your opinion towards Asylum movies will change forever.

The movie looks fantastic and the sound effects are amazing. Director Richard Schenkman has done a great job and everyone has acted quite well. For the first time there are some recognizable actors in the film.
Conclusion - If you like the zombie films and can tolerate gore then you will definitely love this one. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.