Originally Posted by Don Pueblo

i lol'd at one of the comments.

"Gee Ben, do you have with too much free time on your hands?

No, wait a minute, it's your job, right? Current-TV actually pays you to make these segments--despite the inaccuracies.

The opening statement, "With box office revenues in decline,.." is not really true right now. But hey, I guess you think it's okay to make Hollywood appear to be looking desperate for a gimmick to increase revenues.

Well, that aside, 3D is indeed an obvious natural for porn.

However, judging from the appearance of porn cameraman Matt Morningwood's shooting rig,
that huge interocular (the distance between the center of the two lenses) will NOT make for good close-ups. It WILL create eye-gouging headache-inducing ones, though.

And porn sure does use a lot of closeup, eh?

But since Matt was using non-genlockable Panasonic P2-card cameras, he probably can't use a Lanc device to even get the synch close.

On the other hand, maybe out of synch horizontal movement (which will create false depth cues) isn't a concern here. Maybe it's just "Z-axis motion" that matters in 3D porn.

Sorry, but it just kills me when people think that all they have to do is put two cameras side-by-side to shoot 3D movies.

How many eyeballs in the Bible Belt (the geographic area where porn sells the greatest) do you think will be pulled out of their sockets by this masterpiece?

(There's a great opening there for a crude joke, but I'll let you fill in that blank yourself).

-- Dave
"