3D - Redux

So I went on and on about the future of 3D for home theater on a previous post. I guess my post relied on the premise that 3D was the future of movie theaters. However, I'm not so sure this is the case. I loved Avatar and How To Train Your Dragon in 3D. I saw both in Imax 3D. However, I have not seen the many other 3D movies that came out recently, which have been almost universally panned. Apparently, there is a big difference in the quality of 3D. Avatar and Dragon were 3D from the ground up. Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans were most certainly not. These were converted to 3D for the studios to cash in and make a ton of money charging an extra $5 for a ticket.

I read an article today by Roger Ebert titled, "Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)". Okay, Roger Ebert is as old as the hills. His favorite movie is still probably Citizen Kane. He has dodged the Reaper more than one time, and he now looks like a zombie and can no longer talk. But that guy knows his damn movies!!! Ebert eloquently discusses the inside scoop on 3D in Hollywood today in 9 clear points. Bottom line: 3D is just a techno trick that studios are pushing to make more money and get an edge over home theater. Better technology is out there to display movies, and maybe updating the old 24 fps standard is the better way to go. Give his article a read. The best 3D discussion that I have read.

As for my thoughts on home theater... I still think it is coming. However, I now realize (after watching Avatar on Blu-ray in 2D) that the real goal should be higher resolution, higher bitrate and big, bright images. 3D will be worth owning as another option, but I wouldn't go out of my way to purchase a 3D system. For Ian, Ebert did love Avatar in 3D and respects the accomplishment. For those select movies that fully utilize 3D, the extra $5 is worth it. Go see Avatar in Imax 3D when it gets a re-release later this year!

By the way, if theaters want to make the movie experience better, how about this idea. Why not make a more exclusive theater experience. A big screen, fewer seats and patrons, comfortable couches or recliners, a waitress to take food and drink orders that you can eat while watching. Most people are moving away from theaters because they can't stand the crappy seats, crappy food and annoying people making noise. Paying more for a premium experience would solve that problem in a heartbeat.

You're Ruining it for Everyone!

I read an article the other day about how, for the second time in as many weeks, Apple rejected an app from their App Store because it "ridicules public figures". The apps in question were collections of political comics, one by a Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist, the other a collection of PG-rated Tiger Woods mock ups.

Today I read an article about Windows Phone 7 and how they plan to use a similarly strict vetting process for apps in their Marketplace when those devices become available later this year.

This is a dangerously slippery slope. Apple and Microsoft are betting that their devices are so good that you'll put up with any draconian enforcement policies just to keep using them.

Mobile devices are slowly morphing into mini computers. They can do a whole lot of things. While sacrificing of a few things - speed, screen size, etc... - for portability. Tablets, which are all the new rage, are closing the gap ever faster.

Consider this scenario:

You need a new computer for home. You go to BestBuy (or MicroCenter or wherever you go) and look at laptops. The salesperson shows you a super slick laptop, laptop A. It's gorgeous. It has every hardware spec you could possibly need from a laptop. But it comes with one caveat - you can only install software on this laptop that the hardware manufacturer approves. Furthermore, certain applications that the hardware manufacturer provides - music players, mail client, web browser, et al - must be used as no alternatives are supported. Then he shows you another laptop, laptop B, that has all the same hardware specs, but isn't quite the eye-catcher of the other device. On top of that, the OS isn't quite as intuitive and also lacks the good looks of laptop A. But laptop B's manufacturer will permit you to install anything on their computer. The laptops have almost similar pricing, not identical, but close enough that cost isn't a factor. Which do you buy?

If you are the type of person who would buy that laptop, you are a prime candidate for a iPhone or Windows Phone 7 device or a BlackBerry. If you are the type of person that would prefer the door remaining open on your device to do with it what you please, you may want to consider Android. They'll all be great mobile OSes. And they'll all have their own supporters and detractors.

Here's a confession - I own an iPhone. I love it. There really is an app for everything - banking, setting my DVR, tracking my workouts, listening to Reds games, playing Euchre... everything. But as much as I love my iPhone, I still prefer the ability to do with my s**t whatever the hell I want. And I certainly don't like the direction that all this is headed. That's why, unless something drastic changes with Apple's policies before my contract expires, this will be my last iPhone. It's tough to stomach, but continuing to support these practices makes corporations think that people like having their choices limited. So I'll hit them the only way they understand, in their pocketbook.

I Don't Get It

I'll keep this short and sweet and let you folks use the comments to reply. This is not a rhetorical question. I'm honestly at a loss.

A lot of talk lately about college football conference expansion, specifically regarding Notre Dame and the Big Ten. The main argument I keep hearing for Notre Dame needing to join a conference is "to remain competitive". Why must Notre Dame join a conference in order to remain competitive? Is Indiana competitive? Is Syracuse competitive? Is Washington State or California (after their inevitable top-5 ranking to begin every season before collapsing) competitive? Is Colorado or Baylor competitive? Is Vanderbilt or Kentucky or Mississippi State competitive? You know who is definitely competitive? Boise State. And I don't have a clue about their conference affiliation, besides the fact that they are in one (and I think even South Bend has the upper hand on Boise, ID).

It's one thing if the argument is that the BCS may block out Notre Dame should they remain independent, but that's being made as a separate reason apart from "remaining competitive" (and I won't even go into how far-fetched that is, or how it would make Notre Dame a sympathetic figure with fans and AP voters).

So can somebody please tell me the rationale behind this statement? How will Notre Dame cease to be competitive if they remain independent?

A Brand New Car!

Don't know if you all heard or not, but my Hyundai Elantra got rear-ended at a stoplight about two weeks ago. Teresa and Sam were also in the car, and while everyone was alright, "Elaine", as I call(ed) my car, was totaled out. Elaine's other name was "Golf Cart" because she was made of plastic, had poor acceleration, and had a turning radius of about 28 inches. Because she was constructed of minimal metal, the rear impact buckled the floor of my trunk and that moved the rear frame of the vehicle forward about 1.5 inches. In the end, the damage was just too much for repairing and the insurance company totaled out Elaine. *sniffle*

However, the guy who hit me was a nice guy and had good insurance. There were no issues, no hassles, and I actually got more money in the settlement than I thought I'd get for the trade-in value on Elaine. So I was very happy. Also, Teresa and I were already in the planning stages for acquiring a new, larger vehicle. So while the timing was a little early, it was nice to have more money for a down-payment.

Teresa and my planning stages consisted of identifying that we wanted a 3-row vehicle that was not a mini-van. From there, all roads led to the Chevy Traverse. It's cheaper (usually) than it's sister vehicles, the GMC Acadia and the Buick Enclave. Teresa and I really liked it when we test drove it, and through some negotiations with a dealer about 5 minutes from our house, we got the version we wanted. For those keeping track:

2010 Chevy Traverse

• LT w/ 2LT
• Dark Gray
• 2-2-3 Seating Design (captains chair's in second row)
• Leather seating
• Rear DVD Entertainment System
• Personal Connectivity

We brought the new car home last night and I got to take it in to work today. I even got my bluetooth phone hooked up, so when you call my cell phone and I'm in the car, it's totally hands-free! For those of you around for Dad's and/or Sam's birthday, we'll be sure to give you a ride!