Saw 3 Download Kickass Movie |LINK|

I've been to a bunch of 3D movies now. It seems to be all the rage in the movie theaters these days. I have to say that I am not a fan. I have yet to go to a 3D movie where I didn't want to take the glasses off and watch in 2D. That doesn't work, but I sure wish it did. And I've been to the films that people say are the best of the 3D medium (Avatar, Hugo). So it's not that I haven't been to the right films. I just don't think 3D improves the experience in any meaningful way.

saw 3 download kickass movie

We are likely still in the part of the cycle where execs fear getting fired for not having done enough 3D. Right now 3D just equals higher revenue so they all say lets do more. I think 3D movies have really just revealed theater movie demand may be more price elastic than thought. With a good excuse to break the $10 barrier nationwide (3D) they may have found a way to move the whole market up $3 a ticket. The end result may just be a return to normal movies at new higher prices after a couple non-3D blockbusters remind studio execs that content is still king.

I totally agree. Aside from getting a headache, I also feel like my eyes are going blind after watching a 3D movie. A technology that focuses on volumetric display would deliver a much better experience imo, but I imagine that would be in the very distant future.

Problem is that proper 3d needs headtracking too to look real, not just preprogrammed left-right eye parallax sequences (see Johnny Lee headtracking demos with wii on youtube). Our micro head movements that occur all the time change our visual scene. The static head orientation of all todays 3d movies is like seeing the world with your head taped to the back of your chair, it looks wrong. Solving this is only possible in one screen per user systems adjusting 3d scenes on the fly to micro head movements, which is why I think gaming systems will get it right first.

Points to that guy for coming up with an easy solution here. The theory is sound, so it should work.As an aside, The Real-3D glasses use some interesting polarization techniques. After you next 3D movie, keep your pair, cut out the lenses, and overlap and rotate them with respect to each other. Very interesting color and darkness changes that you get.

I think Hollywood really did not do what a good startups would have done! Ask the question is there a real problem we are solving with this 3D thingy? The answer is NO. But they are shoving it anyway because of the monopoly they have on the production business and the distribution business. Fred, you have already written about why scarcity is a shity business model, I think you need to write why dishing crapy upgrades like 3D is worse for the movie business. Hollywood needs to focus on making good movies and that is what interests me to go to the movies not gimmicks. I hope someone from the movie business is taking notice else they are going to loose this crowd. I really do not enjoy paying for the crappy glasses and not such a great experience. Thanks for nothing Hollywood.

Rolling news channels must love it when the latest set of illegal download figures land on their desk every few years. It gives them the chance to lazily put together some polemic V.T.s of teenagers with their faces subtly blacked out talking about how they don't feel any remorse when stealing from "the man". We then get some sanctimonious spiel about how these "evil young cyber pirates are forcing Hollywood's finest out of their jobs" by a reporter that looks as if he couldn't download a track off iTunes if his life depended on it.

I don't condone video piracy, far from it; if the movie industry collapsed I would be out of a job. What I find more objectionable however, is the blame being laid solely at the feet of the young "tech" generation when the industries reaction to the rise of internet piracy has been so lacklustre.

This week saw the publishing of the latest piracy figures. Internet consultancy group Envisional, despite sounding like a team on The Apprentice, have managed to release the results of a study that suggests that illegal downloads have risen 30% in the last four years in the UK. Although this figure seems very high, internet piracy increased by the same amount in 2004 alone, and when you consider the rate at which download speeds have increased in the last four years, it could have been much worse. Their study suggests that the top five box office movies of 2010 were downloaded around 1.4 million times. However, these movies made a collective $4.7 Billion worldwide, so why is your average basement-dwelling adolescent going to worry about that?

Since global internet speeds reached the capacity to share 700MB video files, the industry as a whole has been dragging its feet. The first legal music downloading platforms were released in 2003, and were already making hundreds of millions of dollars by the time the first legal movie streaming services arrive in 2006. The movie industry as a whole has done three main things to counter the rise of the torrent sites: Drastically increased cinema prices, increased the amount of unnecessary 3D releases that cannot be filmed from inside a theatre, and made scapegoats out of a few perpetrators, forcing them to pay astronomical amounts in fines that they obviously will never be able to afford. They have also realised that the old scaremongering ads, which compare downloading to stealing cars and accuse offenders of funding terrorism, have had little effect. Now we are greeted in the cinema by the bloke out of Gavin & Stacey, telling us that he won't be able to get a job if people keep downloading his films. Anyone who has seen Lesbian Vampire Killers will be racing to the nearest torrent site.

The rise of iTunes, Zune and LoveFilm are all helping to cut back the number of illegal downloads, but if the film industry want to make some real progress they need to realize some difficult truths. People will always download films illegally. Video piracy was around long before Tim Berners-Lee, and as long as people have access to the internet it is, unfortunately, impossible to stop them without compromising net neutrality. What the aim should be is to keep this number as small as possible, and these are a few ways in which this can happen.

1. Stop treating people who download films like criminals. Most people who download movies are young people who simply can't afford to pay the ever-increasing price of admission. They are not stupid, and telling them that their downloading is funding terrorism is not true, and they know it. Perhaps if studios listened to the people downloading films instead of threatening them, they could learn something about how to stop it.

2. Stop the rise of cinema prices and improve the cinema going experience. The cost of admission has sky-rocketed in recent years, and a visit to your local multiplex is about as much fun as going to the supermarket. Cinema going should be an adventure. Independent movie houses have benefited greatly from the introduction of bars and cafés and the big chains need to catch up.

4. Target the uploaders of copyrighted material, not the downloaders. In researching this article, it didn't take long to see that the most popular search on one of the top torrent sites was for the username of someone who uploads DVDs in sparkling quality as soon as they become available.

Australians who illegally downloaded the movie "Dallas Buyers Club" will not be asked to pay for the film just yet, after the Federal Court on Friday decided not to release their names and addresses. googletag.cmd.push(function() googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1449240174198-2'); ); The Federal Court ruled in favour of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who had argued that the release of their customers' details could lead to the practice of "speculative invoicing" in which web users are asked to pay large bills or face legal action.One of the ISPs, iiNet, said it was extremely pleased with the decision."From the outset, we've never supported online copyright infringement but we couldn't sit by and have our customers bullied by way of speculative invoicing," said chief executive David Buckingham.Buckingham said iiNet believed copyright infringement was best addressed by studios making their content available in a more affordable and timely manner.In April, the court ordered the six ISPs to hand over the names and physical addresses of the customers associated with 4,726 Internet protocol (IP) addresses allegedly used to share the film online using peer-to-peer file-sharing network BitTorrent.But an immediate stay was put on the release of their details until Dallas Buyers Club (DBC), the company which owns the rights to the movie, explained exactly what it would be seeking in compensation.Justice Nye Perram said he saw no difficulty in DBC suing those who illegally downloaded the film for the cost of an actual purchase of a single copy of the film for each copy downloaded and the costs associated with obtaining each infringer's name.But he said other claims based on the uploads and downloads of a file of the movie on torrent sites were less tenable, including one in which DBC sought a one-off licence fee for each uploader."The idea that any court would assess DBC's damages on the basis that BitTorrent users who were going to share the film over the BitTorrent network would have avoided infringement by approaching DBC to negotiate a distribution arrangement in return for a licence fee is so surreal as not to be taken seriously," he said.Perram said he would release names to DBC if it paid a Aus$600,000 (US$440,000) bond and met other conditions."Because DBC has no presence in Australia the court is unable to punish it for contempt if it fails to honour that undertaking," he said in his decision. "I will therefore require its undertaking to be secured by the lodging of a bon