FEATURE: Rise of the Beast-the new feature from STARS Pictures

I have actually, but I'm waiting for the Scarlet to come out. There's some great rigs online that will allow you to control the divergence, and still shoot at 4k. It would require two Scarlets, but those things are so small anyone, it really doesn't matter. I've even figured out how to cut 3D in Vegas, so all I'm waiting on is the cameras. Hopefully I can do it on Leap 3, which deals with God's judgment and wrath upon the earth. =)
 
According to the article about Alice in Wonderland in the American Cinematographer, the movie was shot in 2D and then converted to 3D. A lot of that is going to happen now that 3D TVs are coming out. I think this time 3D is here to stay.

Personally, I'm not sure about how exactly they do it :-)

______________________
http://kck.st/9RMqzg
 
filmman said:
According to the article about Alice in Wonderland in the American Cinematographer, the movie was shot in 2D and then converted to 3D. A lot of that is going to happen now that 3D TVs are coming out. I think this time 3D is here to stay.

Personally, I'm not sure about how exactly they do it :-)

______________________
http://kck.st/9RMqzg
Click to expand...

I saw a lot of really bad 3D at NAB. Some of it actually giving me a headache.
Everyone will be expecting Avatar, but will actually get something considerably less.
I also discovered, many things do not look better in 3D.
 
I actually liked the 3D in Alice better than Avatar. Yes it was converted, but the cost to do so is somewhere around $5 Million and takes about six months. I'm not quite there-- Yet...
The process is pretty simple. They take your film and create 8 or more planes of depth. Then, frame by frame, an artist traces around objects and assigns them to a plane. Next, crude 3D models are built, animated, and texture mapped with the cutouts of your original film. The computer software then fills in the holes from the cutouts and makes the texture maps look natural. Finally they render out the left and right streams for delivery to the studio, who can then decide what 3D format they want to use.
 
There is a company, V3 or something that is working on a process that doesn't require the viewer to wear glasses. When that becomes popular, I'll bite.
The thing about Avatar is it didnt' call attention to itself. I forgot I was watching 3D and become truly immersed. Most of the other 3D movies I've watched have done the reverse. Maybe that will change over time.
At the Panasonic booth, I viewed a shot on video kids show that was truly awful. 3D cutout and depth of field did not make it a better experience.

Getting a couple of Scarletts will be very cool. Which 3D rigs are you looking at?
 
I can't remember where I pulled this initially, but here's one of the rigs:
red_3d_crop_500x337.jpg


I like the double viewfinder so you can shoot and view in 3D. Now, shooting and editing 3D will be easy. The hard part for us indies will be visual effects. I think once 3D catches on with us, you're going to see less special effects from companies like detonation films being used. Each effect will need to be custom built for each shot and that will cost money.
 
In November 2009 I sent a profile in to Videomaker Magazine. They selected me for the June 2010 issue. The print issue isn't out yet, but the online one is and you can read the article here
They spelled my name wrong in the title and edited the language I used, but other than that, can't complain. Gotta love free advertising. Maybe I'll get lucky and sell more copies of "Leap" =)
 
Nice article, Chris! Tell us more about 3D. You seem to have done this a long time. Are TV monitors going to give us the same type of 3D as we see in cinema houses? Or is it a different form of 3D?
 
Not sure if I understand what you mean by different form. They'll use a different technique, yes.

Okay, updates:
First, I'm in the processes of moving information from my old website to a new one at starspictures.info. My old webhosting service, Ning.com, wants to start charging me in July. I'm too cheap to pay. Uphero.com doesn't make me pay, and I actually like the layout better. Much more control over everything.

Part of moving stuff over meant having to start a real blog, as my new site doesn't have a blog feature per-say. I opened one with wordpress.com and copied all my previous blogs over. It's kinda funny though 'cause now there's 17 entries on May 4th. Oh well. At least they're there for good.

Held a casting session on Sunday. Had some pretty good ones turn out. I taped it and will be doing another Vlog shortly, as soon as I find a place to host video files for free without a time constraint.

So yeah, check out my site, check out the blogs for more info, and I'll keep you all posted.

-El
 
Last edited:
was watching LOST on Hulu.com. It was one of the commercials so not much info. One of their reality shows...but they showed guys doing those kind of moves from your film
 
Seriously, is this thread a joke?
You got $500K funding for a movie but you wont spend $60 bux a year for a domain name for your company?

Obviously thats just 1 of the 35 things in this thread that makes me scratch my head.
If this isn't a joke then sorry for butting in.
 
Rippie said:
Seriously, is this thread a joke?
You got $500K funding for a movie but you wont spend $60 bux a year for a domain name for your company?
Click to expand...
I will say that Chris should have a domain name. We finally got "timecodemechanics.com". I always thought it was too much for people to spell out and for years went under "tcmech.com". And if people find it easier to use a blog, there should be a way to redirect the domain to a blog. Mine is redirected to my blogger blog (which I need to update) in a special mode so when they go there, they only see my domain as the url and they can get to everything else from there.

Rippie said:
Obviously thats just 1 of the 35 things in this thread that makes me scratch my head.
If this isn't a joke then sorry for butting in.
Click to expand...
I don't think he ever said he had the funding. He's still trying to get the funding.

-Nate
 
Nathyn said:
I don't think he ever said he had the funding. He's still trying to get the funding.

-Nate
Click to expand...

" I needed to show that I could do something that looked higher concept than what I'd already done. I'll be the first to admit that we went a bit overboard with the shaky cam, but I told them that and they understood. It is the first scene of the picture, but we'll obviously be re-shooting when production rolls this summer."

Comments like that made me think otherwise but what you're saying would make a lot
more sense.
 
Yeah, they actually cost about $15 a year, but his point was based on what he thought the budget was. But I do believe there should be a real "Stars Pictures" website.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top