Thread: 3D vs 3D
View Single Post
16-04-2010, 05:23 PM   #1
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,374
3D vs 3D
So... with all this 3D craze, does anyone else get really confused and not just a little annoyed with the term "3D".

I mean, when "3D" movies starting coming out in waves, I remember hearing that "UP would be Pixar's first 3D movie" and I was like... uhh... what? Ohh, like put on glasses 3D. And today I was hearing about Autodesk Homestyler which claims to "View floor plans and interior designs in 2D and 3D." So... is this 3D? Or just 3D...

The difference between 2D graphics and 3D graphics is quite obvious, in that you are dealing with creating elements in more than 2 axes/dimensions. But with today's post-processing, 2D images can be viewed in "3D", like Alice.

And 2.5D is a whole other thing... technically Disney and others were doing what is termed "2.5D" in the 40's (I think), but now it's a big deal or something? And many times 3D viewing is a stereo picture of 2.5D (i.e. layered) images. Not to mention (though I will) when 3D graphics are toon-rendered for a 2D look. I wonder what happens when those get processed to "3D".

So why can't we have a word that means what we all do here (I propose 3D graphics), and another word for glasses (or glassesless) stereo images (I propose stereo - it worked for music)

All that to say that this dimensionality is a convoluted and ambiguous set of media buzz-words for a big cash-grab. Let's be clear on exactly what we are referring to.


EDIT: Darn, with a bit more patience I could have had a 666 rant post
  Reply with quote