Are there no 3D TS-movies?!?

[Joe2000]

When stereoscopic 3D came out, i was very excited. I went to the store and bought a lot of 3D devices.
Watching 3D stuff was a lot of fun, until i realized, that there is no 3D TS-movies.
I was waiting for a long time and i thought to myself, that they will certainly come up with a big new 3D-TS-Site, with all the hot stars and great new clips on it.
So i'm still waiting, seeing no big TS cocks coming out of the TV or Beamer and I wonder, why there is not one 3D TS clip.
Does anybody no where i can get some clips, or if there even will be some clips?

[KarinaGiselle]

It's kinda expensive to produce 3D material, and the gear required to watch this kind of content is still quite expensive and unpopular. I could understand why not many porn companies would want to invest in this kind of video productions. If I was a porn producer, why would I spekd $50k just to get a movie done in 3D when the amount of people who can watch this kind of content is very small, and I could save a lot of money by just recording it in HD 1080p?

[Joe2000]

Yes, that's a problem.
Ok, so i work with photo and video and already got some stuff.
I'm really thinking about buying some more equipment and start building this 3D site by my own if i find the time.
It would be a lot of fun to film and photograph some girls and we have great TS here in Germany.
I would be satisfied if I earn as much money as I invest.

[mrtrebus]

What about just converting existing stuff to old school red/green glasses 3d. Can it be that hard?

[Joe2000]

No, it's not hard. There's also a way to convert 2D to stereoscopic 3D.
But the result will not be as good as if you filmed it with two lenses.

[GroobyKrissy]

What about just converting existing stuff to old school red/green glasses 3d. Can it be that hard?

The results are with the red/cyan (anaglyph) images are really not as good as even passive 3D can get. Full, true 3D takes loads of bandwidth and storage space, which I think is the main barrier to productions for websites as far as videos are concerned. A true 3D image (active shutter) takes about 10MB per image vs. around 300KB for a normal picture so you can see the translation into video is astronomical.

I tried doing 3D on my site, and still have some content up (http://www.krissy4ublog.com/category...-3d-anaglyphs/), but until there are passive 3D editors, I think it just won't happen. Quite honestly, the equipment is pretty cheap relatively speaking, both for the producer and the end user so I don't think that is the major drawback right now. It is more the stigma of wearing the glasses that is the main roadblock to mainstream 3D content.

Wasn't there just a thread started about this?

[mrtrebus]

It is more the stigma of wearing the glasses that is the main roadblock to mainstream 3D content.

You haven't seen me in 3d glasses. I look hot in 3d glasses.

[Iori]

just use two monitors and play same clip at same time
and cross your eyes.

[Teydyn]

It is more the stigma of wearing the glasses that is the main roadblock to mainstream 3D content.

Stigma? More like major inconvenient.