[citation][nom]spleenbegone[/nom]I've had the privilege to use a Wacom monitor before, it's an absolutely amazing experience and I can only hope that one day they get within my budget. So I can absolutely see this working in a desktop environment, but I believe we're still going to need a mouse and keyboard to go along with it. I don't think the form of a desktop will change, but what can be done with it will with this (and other) technology.[/citation]
have you ever seen those expensive... dont know what they are called, mounts maybe, for monitors, that let you attach them to the desk, and than freely move them around, changing angle how close they are to you and such.
mix one of those with proper touch gestures on it.
i could honestly see me not haveing a mouse and keyboard any more, at least for anything outside of games. i need to type, well dragon can help me there, i need a mouse, well i have a pen or my finter, depending on how accurate i need/want to be.
lastly, if i considered a monitor a 5 year investment, i could see myself dropping 2500 on one of wacoms monitors. they have a nice 1920x1200 on the high end thats 24 inch.
[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]@dspiderYou are touching glass, there is no electrical current running through your finger when using a touch screen. The fault of your finger going numb is entirely your fault for applying too much pressure, or locking up your joints in your finger which restricts blood flow.@alidanI get what you are saying about 3D, but what makes it a gimmick is not that it cannot be done right, but that it is added where it is unneeded, or overused just because they can, but with no practical benefit to the end user. Yes, 3D gaming is AMAZING when done right (which is expensive, and they are still working some of the bugs out). 3D movies bring a new level of immersion and detail when done right (which I have only really seen in CG content so far... and Avatar... which is mostly CG), but most movies try to make things pop out of the screen which takes the viewer out of the action, or there are errors in the rendering which causes flat spots which are distracting (especially with volumetric content like mists and fogs), so I think we are still a long way off from really seeing good consistent 3D content from being a reality and sticking around for daily use.The other gimmicky thing about 3D is the hardware. People who do not wear glasses tend to not want to wear glasses. People who do wear glasses tend to want to move towards contacts. And nobody wants to wear glasses over glasses. Add to that the shallow viewing angles, lowered brightness, and contrast being sacrificed on the alter of 'progress', and you begin to see why the masses don't want it because of the prohibitive cost, and the elites don't want it because of the compromises made. The only people really driving the tech are the upper middle class with a disposable income who think the tech is 'cool' and gamers who do not suffer many of the same issues because they sit 2' from their screen, dead center (opposed to a group of people on couches) and have money to burn.In short, I agree, 3D is the direction to move, and has great potential; But to say it is going to catch on this time compared to attempts in the 1920s when they were first playing with it as a proof of concept, or every decade after the 1970s is silly. They need to go back to the drawing board and find a convincing, cheap way to do 3D with a minimum of user requirement or hardware (glasses). They are closer... but still not there yet.[/citation]
with content opoing out of the screen at you, there are some movies where that is called for, such as a kids movie like megamind, a horror movie like my bloody valentine, or a movie that is just there for fun, i believe drive angry is in that category, all those movies have things pop out at the screen to get you... and all the have a purpose. the kids movies, well its a kids movie, anything to entertain them, the horror when doen right will make you jump or flinch a bit, and the for fun movie its there because why not, and i beleive drive angry was done well too, from what i have heard.
back in the 20's the tech would be cost prohibitive, for the consumer, and pretty much up till digital photography could cost a crap ton.
in the 70's the tech was blue and red, and even i cant find that enjoyable to sit through anything and watch it.
but now, we have cameras that are 5mp, shoot hd, and are under 20$ (smartphone) and putting 2 of them in tandem to get a stenographic picture shouldn't be to costly, or even shoot a 3d movie...
the cost to make it has come way down, the 3d that we have is far better than it use to be, and the over all cost of having this 3d is also way down.
and its not just that people have disposable income, its that and tv that is well made also has a 3d component today. my dads friend has one eye, and spend i believe 8000$ on a tv, and it has 3d in it... he couldn't use it it, but its everywhere.
i can agree that people who ware glasses don't want 2 pairs, but you could probably get some high quality polarized clip on sunglasses that can work at 3d glasses, to everyone else, i ware glasses, and dont seek contacts and such, if they cant ware sunglasses for 2 hours than i think something is wrong with them.
i believe that in time, brightness will be changed in 3d versions of movies, because as it stands now, the biggest flaw in a 3d movies is whenever its dark.
i think i got off on a bit of a tangent.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram