I agree with #3. This is more than likely a temporary situation as the technology improves, but 3d to me is still not there and most of the time more of a distraction than an engaging enhancement.

I found myself, though liking a few shots, mostly thinking during my first viewing of Avatar that I wished I could simply watch it in glorious widescreen 2d.

What I find both intriguing and yet again poorly argued is #5. It is very possible that there are fundamental concepts that aren’t being understood when it comes to presenting 3d moving images, but without any concrete examples your position is nothing more than speculative.

When you add to that two inaccurate understandings, one of monocular viewing and the other of the filmmakers you criticize, your argument further suffers.

Binocular depth perception or vision is only good to about 13-16ft from the viewer, not “up to 100 feet away”. Anything beyond that limit is monocular depth perception which does indeed use other clues to determine depth.

I work for a company currently engaged in the conversion from 2d-to-3d process you so despise. We understand the problems inherent in 3d presentation, including not creating depth perception in objects further than 16ft away.

Second, calling out James Cameron as not understanding 3d and then presenting alternative solutions he championed *two years* ago, doesn’t do much to bolster your claim of ignorance on his part. A simple search would have turned up this Variety article (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1043&cs=1), published April 10th, 2008, in which he explains the futility of 4K and the need for 48fps.

So although I find the proposition of #5 interesting and would love to see an entire in-depth post on its investigation, you’ve certainly fallen far short of making your case here for any of your points.

Nurlip-The painting is an illustration of the fact that we can see depth even in an otherwise 2D medium without the addition of stereoscopic cues.

1. there’s more content made all the time, and now talk of a 24/7 3D channel on American cable, so it means more productions are on the way.
1a. there are whispers of software that guesses 2D into 3D in real time. probably not great but it’s an option…

2. cost – costs go down, not everyone could afford a color TV at the beginning, nor flat screens 12 years ago…

3+4 the technology is at its infancy. give it a couple of years, will you?

5. same thing – 3D cinema is in its infancy. I say it wil become a serious market force not when the TVs become affordable, but when it gets combined with more and more interactive options where hand gestures and such organic cues are the natural way to navigate the interactive data.