I'm guessing you don't like 3D? I can't "do" 3D as I've got a seriously lazy eye, (as I'm sure I've mentioned in this forum) but I would like to hear your opinions.

Yes those work. I have 3D camera, so I can roll my own.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hairydalek ... 028796825/

Which camera do you have? I've been thinking about getting one when/if I get paid.

Edit: Ah. FUJIFILM FinePix REAL 3D. Interesting.

I've been thinking about this recently, was thinking of putting the news into sections in a given post; sci-fi, horror, thriller etc.

If anyone has any ideas let me know in the movie news and trailers thread

You need extra software to make the anaglyphs or stereo cards, but it’s mostly all free.

Mark Kermode: Name one thing that's better in 3D than 2D
Hugh Dennis: My wife.

3D - still very much a Victorian parlour trick. Fun, but essentially flawed. It doesn’t bring much more to the experience other than a sense of novelty. You can’t, for example, look around an object to see what’s behind it. There is no benefit to sitting to the left or right of the picture (eg I can see things that you can’t). The director still makes decisions about focus, depth of field, and convergence points, so it’s very much a controlled experience.

I see that Scott is resisting pressure to make Blade Runner 3D. Good on him - he wasn’t working to that then, and I bet the pressure for him to make a 3D Alien film is there. Personally, I don’t think that the Alien prequels should be 3D either.

Sorry for the late response John, I only just saw your request. Between this review of Avatar on my blog and discussions in this forum about Alice in Wonderland (both of which I saw at the pictures in 3D) you should get a very good idea of what it is about 3D that I just don't think it's worth the effort.

Mark