Well, just because I disagree with you, and majorly, doesn't mean I'm unfamiliar with the medium. I don't play games often, but I keep up with the industry. And everytime I see a new demo or trailer I see the same simple animation mistakes. The characters look animatitronic. There are some bits of obvious motion…

You may be able to, but lets admit that's not what game makers are focusing on. They're more interested in texture detail and poly count than anything else. I don't know why. The more realistic the characters look, the creepier they become because their movement is way off. I haven't seen anything in major releases…

If you say so. I've haven't seen evidence of such things, though.

Diluted? I'm a less concentrated version of something else? You're deluded.

No, people who deny reality have nothing valid to say. I'm trolling you dude. You're making a fool of yourself on your own.

"So can't we agree that if decreasing is bad, then increasing is good?"

Only a gamer would say games look great. There's a reason they look worse when dropped down to 24fps. The lack of motion blur is more apparent. Motion blur lets one frame flow into another. Games have none. It doesn't look good at 24fps and it doesn't look good at 60fps

"I never said 3D was doing well. I simply said they wouldn't still be making them at double the cost if it didn't sell tickets. "

Charlie, if you promise to never say "augment" again I'll promise to never say "midichlorian". Deal?

Watch closer. I'll give you that the first catch is ambiguous, but the last one is not. The pigeon flies straight up out of the water at 0:30.

No, you're point was 3D was doing well because studios wouldn't invest in a failed tech. I proved 3D isn't doing well, and never has been. Conversation over.

I see the bird flying away in each. There's no bird seen under the water.

Judging by the video there was a 0% success rate. Every bird that's caught gets away. What would the fish do with a feathered bird anyway? I can't imagine them enjoying that meal.

So another bad guy vengeance plot. Another attack the earth plot. More Star Fleet academy? Aren't they all done with that? Or are they getting extra super post graduate training? It's not "Star Trek" if you stay on earth all the time. And then there's the screaming blonde. I just realized the first Star Trek was…

http://youtu.be/ For anyone doubting how crappy 48fps looks, here's a sample from a RED camera.

But he had time to pull out his camera and take a pretty well composed picture. You can't really make an excuse for that. I know he has, but, again the picture is too well composed to have been randomly taken in an attempt to merely set off the flash.

That's all really nice. http://www.techradar.com/us/news/television/3d-ticket-sales-hit-a-record-low-in-us-is-pricing-the-problem-1088599 says otherwise. And, as I said, hard core gamers have no sense. They don't reflect the general public. And you'd still have to prove they're actually using the capabilities.

You're being silly. Wide screen was never rejected on displays that supported it. In other words in the theater and on 16:9 screens. They weren't rejected because they generally suck. They were rejected because nothing could play it properly. That's a little different, no? I'll answer that. Yes, it is different.

I don't think anyone complained about widescreen movies. In fact, wider films have always been met with applause and 16:9 computer and tv screens were adapted with little complaint. 3D has been roundly rejected by people. 48fps will most likely fair the same. It looks unnatural, like a video game. I think people who…

Satan get behind me!