| videonovels@yahoo.com wrote: Quote:dgates was correct. When I said "set aside nostalgia", I meant "Pretend your seeing the movie for the very first time" without remembering the first time you kissed a girl and/or other fond memories. Set aside the nostalgia and judge the movie without bias. Me, having only seen the 1950s movies since 1995-onward, have no nostalgia. And I see them for what they truly are: JUST LIKE SCI-FI CHANNEL MOVIES. Some good stuff (like Dune), but mostly trash (like Ed Wood). (more below) Kate wrote: Going back to the LCD resolution question, it's my understanding that with an interlaced display, your eye is only seeing half the lines at one time anyway, so there is no actual loss of resolution when using the shutter glasses. I'm not a techie, so if someone has other information, please share it. Uh. (thinks) Without 3D you would see the Even lines, then the Odd lines, and they would merge into a single frame (mentally). So you see the full 480 lines resolution. In contrast, with 3D, you first see the Even/left image at 240 lines. Then you see the Odd/right image at 240 lines. The two images do NOT merge, because they are separate viewpoints from two separate cameras. ------ So you're only seeing 240 lines from each camera. Half the resolution. Well, no. Without 3D you see 240 even lines for 1/60th second, then 240 odd lines for 1/60th second. With 3D your left eye sees 240 lines for 1/60th second, then your right eye sees 240 lines for 1/60th of a second. Either way, your brain is doing the filling in, but the resolution is exactly the same at any given moment. Quote:. Put another way, if you had a TRUE 60 frame per second dvd, progressive scanned, both left & right eyes would receive twice-as-many lines. The left eye would receive the Left image at 480 during frame 1.... and the right eye would receive the Right image at 480 during frame 2. Standard resolution. That is true - you'd still have to shut off the view from one eye per frame to get the 3d effect, but the picture would be even better. Why don't you patent the idea? Kate |